Inbred maize seed and plant RPK7346

ABSTRACT

An inbred maize line, designated RPK7346, the plants and seeds of inbred maize line RPK7346, methods for producing a maize plant, either inbred or hybrid, produced by crossing the inbred maize line RPK7346 with itself or with another maize plant, and hybrid maize seeds and plants produced by crossing the inbred line RPK7346 with another maize line or plant.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates to maize improvement. More specifically, this invention relates to an inbred maize line designated RPK7346.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Maize

Maize or corn (Zea mays L.) is one of the major annual crop species grown for grain and forage. A monocot, maize is a member of the grass family (Gramineae) and bears seeds in female inflorescences (usually called ears) and pollen in separate male inflorescences (usually called tassels).

In the U.S., maize is almost exclusively produced by growing hybrid varieties (cultivars). Maize hybrids are typically produced by seed companies and sold to farmers. On farms, maize hybrids are usually grown as a row crop. During the growing season herbicides are widely used to control weeds; fertilizers are used to maximize yields; and fungicides and insecticides are often used to control disease pathogens and insect pests. Before maturity, maize plants may be chopped and placed in storage where the chopped forage (stover) undergoes fermentation to become silage for livestock feed. At maturity in the fall, the seeds are harvested as grain. The grain may be directly fed to livestock or transported to storage facilities. From storage facilities, the grain is transported to be used in making an extremely large number of products, including food ingredients, snacks, pharmaceuticals, sweeteners, and paper products (see, e.g., S. A. Watson and P. E. Ramstad, Eds., Corn: Chemistry and Technology, American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., St. Paul, Minn. (1987)).

While the agronomic performance of maize hybrids has improved, there is a continuing need to develop better hybrids with increased and more dependable grain and stover yields. Moreover, heat and drought stress and continually changing insect predators and disease pathogens present hazards to farmers as they grow maize hybrids. Thus, there is a continual need for maize hybrids which offer higher grain yields in the presence of heat, drought, pathogens and insects.

Inbred Lines and Hybrid Varieties

The ultimate purpose for developing maize inbred lines is to be able to dependably produce hybrids. Commercially viable maize hybrids, like hybrids in many other crop species, manifest heterosis or hybrid vigor for most economically important traits.

Plants resulting from self-pollination (or from other forms of inbreeding) for several generations are termed inbreds (inbred lines). These inbreds are homozygous at almost all loci. When self-pollinated, these inbreds produce a genetically uniform population of true-breeding inbred progeny. These inbred progeny possess genotypes and phenotypes essentially identical to that of their inbred parent. A cross between two different inbreds produces a genetically uniform population of hybrid F₁ plants. These F₁ are genetically uniform, but are highly heterozygous. Progeny from a cross between two hybrid F₁ plants are also highly heterozygous, but are not genetically uniform.

One important result of this phenomenon is that seed supplies of in inbred may be increased by self-pollinating the inbred plants. Equivalently, seed supplies of the inbred may be increased by growing inbred plants such that only pollen from these inbred plants is present during flowering (anthesis), e.g., in spaced or timed isolation. Seed arising from inbred parents successfully grown in isolation is genetically identical to the inbred parents. Another important result is that hybrids of inbred lines always have the same appearance and uniformity and can be produced by crossing the same set of inbreds whenever desired. This is because inbreds, themselves, are genetically uniform. Thus, a hybrid created by crossing a defined set of inbreds will always be the same. Moreover, once the inbreds giving rise to a superior hybrid are identified, a continual supply of the hybrid seed can be produced by crossing these identified inbred parents.

Types of hybrids include single-cross, three-way, and double-cross. Single-cross hybrids are the F₁ progeny of a cross between two inbred lines (inbreds), e.g., AxB, in which A and B are inbreds. Three-way hybrids are the first generation progeny of a cross between a single-cross hybrid and an inbred, e.g., (AxB)xC, in which AxB is a single-cross hybrid of inbreds A and B and C is another inbred. Double-cross hybrids are the first generation progeny of a cross between two single-cross hybrids, e.g., (AxB)x(CxD), in which AxB and CxD are single-cross hybrids of inbreds A and B and C and D, respectively. In the U.S., single-cross hybrids currently occupy the largest proportion of the acreage used in maize production. As will be shown below, maize inbreds are assemblages of true breeding, homozygous, substantially identical (homogeneous) individuals. Single-cross hybrids are both homogeneous and highly heterozygous and are not true breeding. Three-way and double-cross hybrids are less homogeneous, but are nonetheless highly heterozygous and not true breeding as well. Hence, the only way of improving hybrids is improving component inbreds thereof. Improving maize inbreds involves procedures and concepts developed from the discipline of plant breeding.

Plant Breeding

Developing improved maize hybrids requires the development of improved maize inbreds. Maize breeding programs typically combine the genetic backgrounds from two or more inbred lines or various other broad based germplasm sources into breeding populations from which new inbred lines are developed by self-pollination (or other forms of inbreeding) and selection for desired phenotypes. The newly developed inbreds are crossed to other inbred tester lines and the hybrids from these tester crosses are then evaluated to determine whether these hybrids might have commercial potential. Thus, the invention of a new maize variety requires a number of steps. As a nonlimiting illustration, these steps may include:

(1) selecting plants for initial crosses;

(2) crossing the selected plants in a mating scheme to generate F₁ progeny;

(3) self-pollinating the F₁ progeny to generate segregating F₂ progeny;

(4) sequentially self-pollinating and selecting progeny from the F₂ plants for several generations to produce a series of newly developed inbreds which breed true and are highly uniform, yet which differ from each other;

(5) crossing the newly developed inbred lines with other unrelated inbred lines (testers) to produce hybrid seed; and

(6) evaluating the tester hybrids in replicated and unreplicated performance trials to determine their commercial value.

Plants are selected from germplasm pools to improve hybrid traits such as grain and stover yield, resistance or tolerance to diseases, insects, heat and drought, stalk quality, ear retention, and end use qualities. The plants from the germplasm pools are then crossed to produce F₁ plants and the F₁ plants are self-pollinated to generate populations of F₂ plants. Self-pollination and selection in F₂ plants and subsequent generations are illustrated below in a nonlimiting example of a pedigree method of breeding.

In the nursery, F₂ plants are self-pollinated and selected for stalk quality, reaction to diseases and insects, and other traits which are visually scored. During the next growing season, seeds from each selected self-pollinated F₂ plant are planted in a row and grown as F₂-derived, F₃ families. Selection and self-pollination is practiced among and within these F₃ families. In a subsequent growing season, seeds from each selected F₃ plant are planted in a row and grown as F₃-derived, F₄ families. Selection and self-pollination are again practiced among and within these F₄ families. In a subsequent growing season, seeds from each selected F₄ plant are planted in a row and grown as F₄-derived, F₅ families. At this point, selection is practiced predominantly among families, rather than within families, because plants within families tend to be uniform and are approaching homozygosity and homogeneity. Seeds from selected F₅ plants are harvested to be further selected for uniformity prior to being increased.

Simultaneous with self-pollination and selection, seeds from each selected F₃, F₄, and F₅ plant are planted in a female row in one or more isolation blocks along with rows planted with seed of a tester (male) inbred. These isolation blocks are often grown at winter locations so the seed harvested therefrom can be grown in performance trials during the next growing season. Prior to anthesis, tassels from the selected F₃, F₄, and F₅ female plants are removed before they shed pollen so that the only pollen present in the isolation block is from the tester inbred. Seeds arising from the selected F₃, F₄, and F₅ female plants are hybrid seeds having the selected F₃, F₄, and F₅ plants as maternal (seed) parents and the tester inbred as the paternal (pollen) parent.

Hybrid seeds from the isolation blocks, check hybrids, and commercially significant hybrids of the same maturity are grown in replicated performance trials at a series of locations. Each check hybrid is the result of crossing the tester parent and an inbred parent of known maturity and proven agronomic value. During the growing season, the hybrids are visually scored for any of the above-described traits. At maturity, plots in these trials are usually scored for the percentage of plants with broken or tilted stalks and dropped ears. At harvest, grain yield, grain moisture, and grain test weight are determined. The resulting data from these performance trials are analyzed and means and statistics are calculated. These statistics provide indications of the reliability (precision) of the means obtained from the performance trials. Means from these performance trials are then used to further cull plants in the nursery on the basis of unsatisfactory performance of their hybrids. Performance trials for earlier generations typically evaluate more hybrids and are planted at fewer locations than performance trials for later generations. At some point, seed supplies of elite inbred candidates from the nursery are increased and are used to produce larger amounts of experimental hybrids. These experimental hybrids are evaluated in replicated performance trials at maximum possible numbers of locations and may be grown alongside commercial hybrids from other seed companies in farmer fields in unreplicated trials as well. If the experimental hybrids perform well with respect to the commercial hybrids in these replicated and unreplicated trials, they are commercialized.

While the above-described pedigree method is widely used to develop maize inbreds, variations are widely used as well. Moreover, other breeding method protocols such as those for bulks, backcrossing, recurrent selection, and mass selection may be practiced in addition to, or in lieu of, the pedigree method described above. Theories and exemplary protocols for the pedigree method, bulk method, recurrent selection, and mass selection are known to the art, but are disclosed in, e.g., A. R. Hallauer and J. B. Miranda Fo, Quantitative Genetics in Maize Breeding, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa (1981); G. Namkoong, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics in Forestry, U.S. Dept. Agric. Forest Service Tech. Bull. No. 1588 (1979); F. N. Briggs and P. F. Knowles, Introduction to Plant Breeding, Reinhold Publishing Company, New York (1967), R. W. Allard, Principles of Plant Breeding, Wiley and Sons, New York (1960), N. W. Simmonds, Principles of Crop Improvement, Longman Group, Ltd., London (1979); and J. M. Poehlman, Breeding Field Crops, 2d Ed., AVI Publishing Co., Inc. Westport, Conn. (1979), the relevant disclosures of each hereby incorporated by reference.

As discussed above, hybrids of promising advanced breeding lines are thoroughly tested and compared to appropriate check hybrids in environments representative of the commercial target area(s), usually for 2-3 years. The best hybrids identified by these performance trials are candidates for commercial exploitation. Seed of each of the newly developed inbred parents of these hybrids is further purified and increased in steps leading to commercial production. These prerequisite activities to marketing newly developed hybrids usually take from eight to 12 years from the time the first breeding cross is made. Therefore, development of new cultivars is a time-consuming process requiring precise planning and efficient allocation and utilization of limiting resources.

Identification of genetically superior individuals is one of the most challenging issues confronting the plant breeder. For many economically important traits, the true genotypic expression of the trait is masked by effects of other (confounding) plant traits and environmental factors. One method of identifying a superior hybrid is to observe its performance relative to other experimental hybrids and to a series of widely grown standard cultivars. However, because a single observation is usually inconclusive, replicated observations over a series of environments are necessary to provide an estimate of the genetic worth of a hybrid.

Maize is an important and valuable field crop. Hence, a continuing goal of plant breeders is to develop high-yielding maize hybrids which are otherwise agronomically desirable and which are produced by stable inbred lines. To accomplish this goal, the maize breeder must continually develop superior inbred parent lines. Developing superior inbred parent lines requires identification and selection of genetically unique, superior individuals from within segregating populations.

Each segregating population is the result of a combination of a multitude of genetic crossover events, independent assortment of specific combinations of alleles at many gene loci, and inheritance of large groups of genes together due to the effects of linkage. Thus, the probability of selecting any single individual with a specific superior genotype from a breeding cross is infinitesimally small due to the large number of segregating genes and the virtually unlimited recombinations of these genes. Nonetheless, the genetic variation present among the segregating progeny of a breeding cross enables the identification of rare and valuable new genotypes. These rare and valuable new genotypes are neither predictable nor incremental in value, but are rather the result of expressed genetic variation. Thus, even if the genotypes of the parents of the breeding cross can be completely characterized and a desired genotype known, only a few, if any, individuals with the desired genotype may be found within a large, segregating F₂ population. Typically, however, neither the genotypes of the parents used in the breeding cross nor the desired progeny genotype to be selected are known to any extent.

In addition to the preceding problem, it is not known with any degree of certainty how the new genotype would interact with the environment. This uncertainty is measured statistically by genotype-by-environment interactions and is an important, yet unpredictable, factor in plant breeding. A breeder of ordinary skill in the art can neither predict nor characterize a priori a new desirable genotype, how the genotype will interact with various climatic factors, or the resulting phenotypes of the developing lines, except perhaps in a very broad and gross fashion. A breeder of ordinary skill in the art would also be unable to re-create the same line twice from the very same original parents because the breeder is unable to direct how the parental genomes will combine in the progeny or how the resulting progeny will interact with environmental conditions when undergoing selection. This unpredictability results in the expenditure of large amounts of limited research resources to develop each superior new maize inbred line.

A reliable method of controlling male fertility (pollen viability) in plants provides means for efficient and economical subsequent hybrid production. This is also the case when plant breeders are developing maize hybrids in breeding programs. All breeding programs rely on some sort of system or method of pollen control and there are several methods of pollen control available to breeders. These pollen control methods include barriers such as bags for covering silks and collecting pollen from individual plants, manual or mechanical emasculation (detasseling), cytoplasmic male-sterility (CMS), genetic male-sterility, and gametocides.

Hybrid maize seed is usually produced commercially by using a male-sterility system, manual or mechanical detasseling, or a combination of both. In typical commercial hybrid seed production, alternate strips of two maize inbreds are planted in a field. The tassels are removed from the inbred designated to be the seed or female parent. Alternatively, the female is male-sterile and is not detasseled. If there is sufficient isolation from sources of foreign maize pollen, the ears of the female inbred will be fertilized only with pollen from the other (male) inbred. The resulting seed, harvested from the female parents in a successful hybrid production effort, is hybrid F₁ seed which will germinate and grow into hybrid F₁ plants.

Manual or mechanical detasseling can be avoided by using inbreds with cytoplasmic male-sterility (CMS). CMS requires both a homozygous nuclear locus and the presence of a cytoplasmic factor for sterility, otherwise the plant will produce viable pollen. The CMS system requires A-lines (females), B-lines (maintainers), and R-lines (males). Male-sterile A-lines are homozygous for a nuclear allele for pollen sterility and possess the cytoplasmic factor for pollen sterility as well. B-lines produce viable pollen because they are homozygous for the sterile nuclear allele but possess a fertile cytoplasmic factor. With the exception for the allele for pollen fertility, B-lines usually have a nuclear genome essentially identical to their complimentary A-line. R-lines are homozygous for a nuclear allele for fertility and possess a fertile cytoplasmic factor. Thus, R-lines produce viable pollen. Seed of male-sterile A-lines is increased by being pollinated by complimentary B-lines. The resulting seed grows into male-sterile A-line plants because the fertile cytoplasmic factor from the B-lines is not transmitted by B-line pollen. Hybrid seed is produced by pollinating A-line plants with pollen from R-line plants. The resulting hybrid seed is heterozygous at the nuclear locus and possesses the sterile cytoplasmic factor. Thus, the hybrid seed will grow into plants which produce viable pollen.

In addition to CMS, there are several methods conferring genetic male-sterility. One method involves multiple loci (including a marker gene in one case) which confer male-sterility, as disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,654,465 and 4,727,219 to Brar et al. Another method disclosed by U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,861,709 and 3,710,511 to Patterson uses chromosomal reciprocal translocations, deficiencies, and duplications. These and all patents referred to are hereby incorporated by reference. In addition to these methods, U.S. Pat. No. 5,432,068 to Albertsen et al., describes a system of induced nuclear male-sterility which includes: identifying a gene critical to male fertility; “silencing” this critical gene; replacing the native promoter from the critical gene with an inducible promoter; and inserting the genetically engineered gene back into the plant. The resulting plant is male-sterile while the inducible promoter is not operative because the male fertility gene is not transcribed. Fertility is restored by inducing the promoter with a non-phytotoxic chemical which induces expression of the critical gene, thereby causing the gene conferring male fertility to be transcribed. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,689,049 and 5,689,051 to Cigan et al. discloses a transgenic maize plant rendered male-sterile by being transformed with genetic construct including regulatory elements and DNA sequences capable of acting in a fashion to inhibit pollen formation or function.

Yet another male-sterility system delivers a gene encoding a cytotoxic substance into the plant. The cytotoxic substance is associated with a male tissue-specific promoter or an antisense system. In each instance, a gene critical to fertility is identified and an antisense transcription to that gene is inserted in the plant (See e.g. Fabinjanski, et al., EPO 89/3010153.8 Publication No. 329,308 and PCT Application No. PCT/CA90/00037 published as WO 90/08828).

Another system potentially useful to confer male-sterility uses gametocides. Gametocides are topically applied chemicals affecting the growth and development of cells critical to male fertility. Application of gametocides affects fertility in the plants only for the growing season in which the gametocide is applied. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 4,936,904 to Carlson (N-alkyl-2-aryl-4-oxonicotinates, N-alkyl-5-aryl-4-oxonicotinates, N-alkyl-6-aryl-4-oxonicotinates, N-alkyl-2,6-diaryl-4-oxonicotinates). However, inbred genotypes differ in the extent to which they are rendered male-sterile by gametocides and in the growth stages at which the gametocides must be applied.

During hybrid seed production, incomplete detasseling or incomplete inactivation of pollen from the female parent will cause some of the female parent plants to be self-pollinated. These selfed female plants will produce seed of the female inbred, rather than the desired hybrid seed. The selfed seed of the female plants will then be harvested and packaged along with the hybrid seed. Alternatively, seed from the male inbred line may also be present among hybrid seed if the male plants are not eliminated after pollination. In either case, once the mixture of hybrid and “selfed” seed is planted it is possible to identify and select the female or male inbreds growing among hybrid plants. Typically these “selfs” are easily identified and selected because of their decreased vigor for vegetative and/or reproductive characteristics (e.g., shorter plant height, small ear size, ear and kernel shape, or cob color). Identification of these selfs can also be accomplished through molecular marker analyses. See, e.g., Smith et al., “The Identification of Female Selfs in Hybrid Maize: A Comparison Using Electrophoresis and Morphology”, Seed Science and Technology 14:1-8 (1995), the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference. Through these technologies, the homozygosity of the self-pollinated line can be verified by analyzing allelic composition at various loci along the genome. These methods allow for rapid identification of the invention disclosed herein. See also, Sarca et al., “Identification of Atypical Plants in Hybrid Maize Seed by Postcontrol and Electrophoresis,” Probleme de Genetica Teoritica si Aplicata Vol. 20(1): 29-42. As is apparent to one skilled in the art, the foregoing are only some of the ways by which an inbred can be obtained and seed supplies of inbreds and hybrids increased.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

There is provided a seed of maize inbred line designated RPK7346, a regenerable cell arising from the seed, a tissue culture arising from the regenerable cell, and a maize plant arising from the tissue culture. There is also provided a plant arising from said seed and pollen, ovules, and regenerable cells arising from the plant.

There is further provided a process of producing a maize seed, the process including identifying an inbred maize plant arising from said seed and disposed within an assemblage of hybrid maize plants and pollinating the inbred maize plant such that the maize seed arises therefrom. Pollinating may include self-pollinating and cross-pollinating.

There is yet further provided a process of sequentially inbreeding a maize plant, the process including inbreeding a hybrid maize plant and progeny thereof, one of the parents of the hybrid maize plant arising from the seed of the present invention. The process may further include planting the seed such that maize plants arise from the seed; inbreeding the maize plants such that seed arises from the maize plants; and harvesting the seed arising from inbreeding the maize plants. Planting, inbreeding, and harvesting may be cyclically continued until a family obtained from a plant arising from at least one of said inbred seed is substantially homogeneous.

There is still further provided a process of developing a derived maize plant. The process may include providing a maize plant arising from the seed of the present invention and introgressing a trait into the maize plant. Introgressing may include backcrossing, a tissue culture protocol inducing heritable somaclonal variation, and a transformation protocol. The transformation protocol may include microprojectile-mediated transformation, Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, electroporation, needle-like body-facilitated transformation, and any combination thereof.

According to the invention, there is provided a novel inbred maize line, designated RPK7346. This invention thus relates to the seeds of inbred maize line RPK7346, to the plants of inbred maize line RPK7346, to methods for producing a maize plant. The maize plant and seed of this invention may be produced by being crossed with itself or another maize line. This invention also includes methods for producing a maize plant containing one or more transgenes in its genetic material and to the derived (transgenic) maize plants produced by that method.

This invention also provides methods for producing other inbred maize lines from inbred maize line RPK7346 and to the inbred maize lines derived by the use of those methods.

This invention further provides hybrid maize seeds and plants produced by crossing the inbred line RPK7346 with another maize line.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Inbred maize lines are typically developed for use in the production of hybrid maize lines. Inbred maize lines need to be highly homogeneous, homozygous, and reproducible to be useful as parents of commercial hybrids. There are many analytical methods available to determine the homozygotic and phenotypic stability of these inbred lines. The oldest and most traditional method of analysis is observation of their phenotypic traits. Data scoring these traits are usually collected in field experiments over the life of the maize plants to be examined. Phenotypic characteristics often observed are for traits associated with plant, ear, and kernel morphology, insect and disease reaction (resistance or tolerance), maturity, and grain and stover yield.

In addition to phenotypic observations, the genotype of a plant can also be determined. Many laboratory-based techniques are available to determine, compare and characterize plant genotypes. Among these techniques are isozyme electrophoresis, restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs), randomly amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs), arbitrarily primed polymerase chain reaction (AP-PCR), DNA amplification fingerprinting (DAF), sequence characterized amplified regions (SCARs), amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLPs), and simple sequence repeats (SSRs) (microsatellites).

The most widely used of these laboratory techniques are isozyme electrophoresis and RFLPs, e.g., M. Lee, “Inbred Lines of Maize and Their Molecular Markers,” The Maize Handbook, (Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc. 1994, at 423-432), the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference. Isozyme electrophoresis is a useful tool in determining genetic composition, although a relatively low number of available markers, as well as a low number of alleles are present among maize inbreds. By contrast, RFLPs have the advantage of revealing an exceptionally high degree of allelic variation in maize, with an almost limitless number of available markers.

Maize RFLP linkage maps have been rapidly constructed and widely implemented in genetic studies. One such study, described in Boppenmaier, et al., “Comparisons Among Strains of Inbreds for RFLPs”, Maize Genetics Cooperative Newsletter, 65: 1991, pg. 90, is incorporated herein by reference. This study used 101 RFLP markers to analyze patterns of two to three different deposits of each of five different inbred lines. The inbred lines had been previously selfed from nine to 12 times before being utilized in two to three different breeding programs. These two to three different breeding programs supplied the different seed deposits for analysis. These five lines had been maintained in the different breeding programs by selfing (or sibbing) and rogueing off-type plants for an additional one to eight generations. After the RFLP analysis was completed, results indicated that the five lines showed 0-2% residual heterozygosity. Although this was a relatively small study, the RFLP data indicated that the lines had been highly homozygous prior to being separately maintained by the breeding programs.

Inbred maize line RPK7346 is a flint-like inbred line suited for use as a male or female for producing first generation F₁ maize hybrids. Inbred maize line RPK7346 was derived from a flint synthetic population, the flint synthetic population initiated by combining genetically diverse sources of flint and related germplasm adapted to climatic conditions of northern Europe. Inbred maize line RPK7346 is considered to have an excellent combining ability. Specifically, inbred maize line RPK7346 combines well with dent inbred families such as BSSS (e.g., B14, B37, B73) and Lancasters (e.g., Mo17, Oh43). Inbred maize line RPK7346 is also considered to have good combining ability with Iodents.

Especially noteworthy, is the extremely early relative maturity of inbred maize line RPK7346 F₁ hybrids. In view of the flint background of inbred maize line RPK7346, grain of RPK7346 hybrids dries down at a surprisingly fast rate. Inbred maize line RPK7346 produces excellent quantities of pollen and is, hence, considered a good to excellent pollinator when used as a male in commercial hybrid production. Stalks of inbred maize line RPK7346 are considered to be resistant to Fusarium stalk rot (Fusarium moniliforme) and the root system of inbred maize line of RPK7346 is considered to be strong.

Inbred maize line RPK7346 is considered to be tall (1.5-1.6 m), with a point of ear insertion at the middle of the plant or slightly lower. Stalks of inbred maize line RPK7346 are considered to have a medium thickness and exhibit a slight degree of anthocyanin pigmentation. Shanks of inbred maize line RPK7346 are short to very short and ears are considered long (15-17 cm) and thin (ca. 35 cm) and are cylindro-conically shaped. Inbred maize line RPK7346 exhibits a two-ear tendency, especially under lower populations. Ears of inbred maize line RPK7346 typically have 12-14 kernel rows, each kernel row with 22-25 kernels. Cobs of inbred maize line RPK7346 are considered to be thin (ca. 25 mm) and are white.

Inbred maize line RPK7346 is considered to flower early, three days after F2 and one day after F259. Inbred maize line RPK7346 is protogynous, the silks thereof typically emerging 1-2 days before the onset of pollen shed. Initially, the silks are green, later showing a bright red anthocyanin pigmentation. Brace roots of inbred maize line RPK7346 also exhibit a moderate amount of anthocyanin pigmentation. An elevated number of leaves are usually present on plants of inbred maize line RPK7346. Typically, RPK7346 plants have 10-11 leaves, as compared to 8-9 leaves present on plants of the inbred F2. Leaves present on stalks of inbred maize line RPK7346 are considered to be semi-erect and are usually wider (7-8 cm) than other commonly known flint inbreds. Leaves of inbred maize line RPK7346 usually exhibit a normal green color. The grain type of inbred maize line RPK7346 is considered to be flint, but may lightly dent at the base of some ears. The seed color is yellow and slightly orange. Thousand kernel weights of seeds from inbred maize line RPK7346 are considered to be high, often between 280-300 g, as compared to about 200 g for most other flint inbred lines.

Tassels of inbred maize line RPK7346 are considered to be medium to small, with a central axis about 20 cm long. The tassel usually displays a few, semi-erect branches. These branches may be between 5-7 in number and are considered to have short lengths (8-10 cm).

Tables 1A and 1B depict expressions of morphological characteristics for inbred maize line RPK7346. Table 1A includes data gathered for characters under the format specified by the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). Responses and check inbreds exemplifying the responses also conform to the UPOV format. Table 1B contains descriptions of morphological characters for inbred maize line RPK7346. Table 1B conforms to the protocol specified by the French Ministry of Agriculture, CTPS (Permanent Technical Committee for the Selection of Plant Varieties). Responses and inbred lines exemplifying the responses also conform to this protocol. Exemplary inbred lines listed are characteristic of the response given for each morphological trait.

TABLE 1A RPK7346 MORPHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION CHECK CHARACTERISTIC EXPRESSION CULTIVAR Tassel: time of anthesis early to medium F259 (4) (on middle third of main axis, 50% of plants) Ear: anthocyanin coloration of silks present F2 (9) Plant: length (tassel included) long MO17 (7) Ear: type of grain flint F2 (1) (in middle third of ear) Ear: anthocyanin coloration of absent F2 (1) glumes of cob

TABLE 1B RPK7346 MORPHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION CHECK CHARACTERISTIC EXPRESSION CULTIVAR Density of main axis medium W401 (5) Angle between main axis and small 25° F257 (3) primary lateral branches (in lower third of tassel) Attitude of lateral branches of slightly recurved A619 (3) tassel Number of primary lateral few <10 F252 (3) branches of tassel Intensity of anthocyanin coloration weak F186 (3) of silks Length of main axis above lowest short EP1 (3) side branch of tassel Length of main axis above upper short EP1 (3) side branch of tassel Ratio height of insertion of upper medium F522 (5) ear to plant length Width of blade (leaf of upper ear) medium A632 (5) Length of peduncle of ear very short (1) Length of upper ear (without husk) medium A654 (5) Diameter of upper ear (in middle) medium W401 (5) Shape of upper ear conico-cylindrical F7 (2) Number of rows of grain few (10-14) F2 (3) Color of top of grain yellow orange F2 (4) Intensity of anthocyanin coloration very weak (1) of glumes of cob

Table 2 depicts the isozyme profile foe inbred maize line RPK7346. An exemplary protocol utilized to generate isozyme date such as these was described by Stuber et al, “Techniques and Scoring Procedures for Gel Electrophoresis of Enzymes from Maize (Zea mays L.),” Technical Bulletin #286, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. (1988) hereby incorporated by reference.

TABLE 2 RPK7346 ISOZYME PROFILE ISOZYME LOCUS CHROMOSOME ALLELE MDH 1 8 6 2 6 6 3 3 16 Mmm 1 M 4 1 12 5 5 12 IDH 1 8 6 2 6 6 PGI 1 1 4 PGD 1 6 3,8 2 3 5 PGM 1 1 9 2 5 4 ACP 1 9 2 DIA 1 2 8 ADH 1 1 4 GOT 1 3 4 2 5 4 3 5 4 βGLU 1 10 6 CAT 3 4 12

Tables 3, 4A and 4B depict the RFLP profile of inbred maize line RPK7346. Table 3 depicts the “allele” present at each probe for inbred maize line RPK7346, as well as 12 reference inbreds. Tables 4A and 4B supplement and augment the information presented in Table 3 by listing exemplary inbreds with the same or differing alleles for each probe.

TABLE 3 RFLP PROFILE RPK7346 v. 12 reference inbreds Nb of Maize DB alleles RPK7346 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 LO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC94A 5 n 1 5 2 2 n n 2 2 2 4 1 5 UMC11 8 51 41 51 14 51 51 93 51 72 51 82 35 23 UMC157 7 434 342 123 324 123 434 434 143 343 324 123 342 251 UMC76 7 52 33 56 33 45 42 52 42 33 51 24 33 24 CSU59B 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 UMC58 4 31 22 32 32 32 33 33 31 32 32 31 22 33 UMC67 8 31 34 33 33 33 28 28 11 38 33 32 34 37 BNL5.59 7 411 212 411 514 411 514 514 512 312 514 413 212 413 UMC83A 6 41 52 12 62 12 31 31 22 62 62 12 52 22 UMC128 7 355 152 122 122 154 132 132 133 252 122 152 1582 154 UMC107A 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 UMC84 10 72 55 63 11 35 43 21 11 72 12 71 55 43 UMC161 5 123 137 137 223 137 122 122 223 137 223 137 137 228 BNL6.32 8 243 162 521 351 521 461 271 333 271 351 161 162 461 BNL7.49B 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 UMC6 7 531 531 521 521 521 531 231 612 134 531 521 531 212 CSU109 10 22 72 22 61 61 35 53 41 94 61 81 55 72 UMC121 6 36 51 n2 36 17 36 36 53 44 36 51 51 17 UMC32A 5 31 31 31 31 31 23 23 14 34 31 31 32 31 CSU16A 8 53 21 53 21 33 44 15 42 44 21 41 21 44 UMC10A 7 22 31 43 43 473 33 12 23 52 43 52 31 23 UMC92 7 11 21 13 73 73 32 21 62 51 73 73 21 62 UMC102 5 n3 n4 n4 n4 n4 32 11 n4 n4 n4 24 n4 n4 CSU30A 4 42 24 11 147 11 42 42 42 11 14 42 24 11 UMC60 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 1 3 3 BNL8.01 6 3 1 2 6 6 2 3 4 5 6 6 2 5 UMC16A 4 23 23 23 22 23  n4 n4 13 23 22 23 23 23 CSU25A 4 4 2 4 2 4 3 3 1 4 2 4 2 1 UMC31 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 CSU19 4 3 2 3 1 1 4 4 3 1 3 3 2 3 BNL15.45 5 3 2 5 4 5 n n n 5 4 2 2 2 UMC19 6 15 44 24 11 24 11 26 26 11 11 24 44 44 UMC66 5 41 34 12 12 12 24 34 23 34 12 23 34 12 UMC104B 3 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 CSU9B 4 222 312 312 232 232 222 232 232 222 232 222 312 232 UMC15 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 2 4 1 3 3 BNL15.07 6 5 3 6 4 6 3 4 1 5 4 3 3 2 BNL6.25 6 12 34 56 56 56 45 56 33 56 56 24 34 56 UMC107B 5 43 43 52 43 52 43 43 51 35 43 11 43 43 UMC27 4 3 2 3 3 2 6 6 6 4 3 3 2 4 UMC43 5 26 13 13 17 13 13 15 26 13 17 32 13 13 UMC83B 5 1 5 3 2 3 4 1 1 4 2 3 5 4 CSU36A 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 UMC138B 3 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 3 3 UMC54 7 25 53 21 43 41 14 33 14 43 43 25 25 25 UMC68 6 32 45 42 43 42 46 46 45 46 22 43 46 32 UMC104A 4 32 21 21 21 21 33 32 11 21 21 32 21 32 UMC59 6 62 21 21 31 21 44 15 62 15 31 31 15 43 UMC65 3 43 22 22 22 22 43 22 42 42 22 43 22 43 UMC21 7 5n2 115 2n3 2n3 2n3 5n2 5n4 331 321 2n3 636 115 2n3 CSU60 4 2 3 6 6 6 3 6 1 1 6 6 3 1 UMC38A 5 34 25 23 24 23 23 23 41 23 24 24 23 23 UMC138A 7 24 25 25 25 25 41 16 23 23 25 21 33 33 UMC132A 5 24 24 25 25 25 23 24 13 23 25 12 23 23 CSU16B 5 3 1 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 4 5 1 1 UMC62 5 222 121 222 114 222 224 222 224 122 114 222 224 121 UMC134A 6 35 35 35 23 35 23 12 11 14 35 35 34 23 BNL8.45 5 36 23 23 25 15 23 25 34 36 25 25 23 23 BNL15.40 5 34 21 21 23 13 21 23 42 34 23 23 21 21 CSU11 7 2 1 4 4 3 1 1 5 8 4 6 1 1 BNL15.21 3 2 4 2 2 2 4 4 3 2 2 4 2 2 UMC110 8 n62 245 513 514 513 n14 371 n14 285 n62 245 245 24n UMC116 7 32 4n 4n 61 4n 4n 63 44 51 4n 24 4n 4n BNL14.07 7 18 32 28 17 55 18 18 18 43 55 17 56 17 BNL16.06 4 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 2 c 3 3 1 1 UMC168 8 412 414 131 131 131 613 613 513 113 131 423 414 423 CSU27 6 1n5 4n4 327 327 327 2n1 326 126 4n4 327 327 4n4 4n4 UMC35 5 n2 22 n2 32 n2 n2 n2 n1 n2 32 11 22 n2 CSU163 9 81 81 54 81 54 15 63 22 41 81 51 81 61 UMC103 6 27 27 27 27 28 34 34 36 35 27 27 27 31 UMC120 3 21 11 21 2n 21 21 21 21 11 2n 11 11 11 UMC124 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 UMC152 6 13 61 14 61 14 31 31 61 25 61 61 61 11 UMC32B 3 22 22 22 21 22 22 22 33 33 21 22 22 22 UMC89 4 22 23 23 23 23 23 22 23 15 23 24 23 23 UMC12A 5 4 4 5 1 4 4 2 4 3 1 3 1 4 UMC16B 10 515 312 142 514 146 113 143 611 146 514 515 146 136 UMC7 5 2 2 1 1 1 6 7 1 7 1 2 2 2 UMC109 5 4 1 3 4 3 2 1 5 2 4 2 1 5 UMC113A 7 61 42 42 42 42 31 22 12 32 42 42 42 62 UMC81 4 22 32 12 32 12 23 22 32 32 32 23 32 22 UMC114 8 623 624 575 476 575 637 575 152 162 476 623 624 623 UMC95 8 65 23 45 11 22 5n 11 34 44 11 45 23 5n BNL6.09 4 2 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 1 4 3 3 1 BNL14.28A 5 43 42 42 42 42 11 11 42 42 42 52 42 51 CSU59A 8 343 1n1 141 424 141 211 111 145 531 424 141 1n1 111 CSU25B 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 BNL3.04 9 21 13 22 22 22 33 12 22 44 22 24 25 26 UMC130 8 21 32 32 83 73 72 21 34 73 83 1n 32 54 BNL10.13 5 6 1 6 1 6 2 4 6 4 1 6 1 6 UMC44A 7 132 825 544 544 544 132 355 132 A65 544 213 825 825 BNL7.49A 2 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 CSU48 8 13 52 16 16 26 21 52 44 16 16 44 52 35

TABLE 4A RPK7346 COMPARATIVE RFLP PROFILE Maize DB Inbreds having same allele UMC94A CO255 EP1 UMC11 7250 A632 CM105 CO255 F2 LO904 UMC157 CO255 EP1 UMC76 EP1 CSU59B 7250 A619 A632 CM105 CO255 EP1 ILO904 OH43 W401 UMC58 F2 MO17 UMC67 BNL5.59 A632 CM105 UMC83A UMC128 UMC107A UMC84 F252 UMC161 BNL6.32 BNL7.49B 7250 A619 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC6 A619 CO255 ILO904 OH43 UMC44B F252 UMC34 A619 OH43 W401 UMC131 7250 A632 UMC139 B73 ILO904 MO17 UMC4 CM105 UMC137 A632 CM105 MO17 W401 UMC36A A619 CSU109 A632 UMC121 7250 B73 CO255 EPI ILO94 UMC32A 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 ILO904 MO17 W401 CSU16A A632 UMC10A UMC92 7250 UMC102 CSU30A CO255 EP1 F2 MO17 UMC60 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 F2 ILO904 OH43 W401 BNL8.01 EP1 UMC16A A619 A632 CM105 F252 MO17 OR43 W401 CSU25A 7250 A632 CM105 F252 MO17 UMC31 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 OR43 W401 CSU19 A632 F2 ILO904 MO17 W401 BNL15.45 UMC19 UMC66 UMC104B 7250 A632 CM1O5 CO255 F2 CSU9B CO255 F252 MO17 UMC15 7250 A619 A632 CM1O5 EP1 F2 OR43 W401 BNL15.07 F252 BNL6.25 UMC107B A619 B73 CO255 EP1 ILO904 OH43 W401 UMC27 A632 B73 ILO904 MO17 UMC43 F2 UMC83B EP1 F2 CSU36A 7250 A619 A632 CMIOS EP1 F2 F252 OH43 UMC138B A619 F2 F252 UMC54 7250 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC68 W401 UMC104A EP1 MO17 W401 UMC59 F2 UMC65 CO255 MO17 W401 UMC21 7250 CO255 CSU60 UMC38A UMC138A UMC132A A619 EP1 CSU16B CO255 F2 UMC62 7250 A632 CM105 EP1 MO17 UMC134A 7250 A619 A632 CM105 ILO904 MO17 BNL8.45 F252 BNL15.40 F252 CSU11 BNL15.21 7250 A632 B73 CM105 F252 ILO904 OH43 W401 UMC110 ILO904 BNL14.07 CO255 EP1 F2 BNL16.06 A619 CO255 OH43 W401 UMC168 CSU27 UMC35 A632 CM105 CO255 EP1 F252 W401 CSU163 A619 B73 ILO904 OH43 UMC103 A619 A632 B73 ILO904 MO17 OH43 UMC120 A632 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 UMC124 7250 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 ILO904 UMC152 UMC32B 7250 A619 A632 CM105 EP1 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC89 EP1 UMC12A A619 CM105 CO255 F2 W401 UMC16B MO17 UMC7 A619 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC109 B73 ILO904 UMC113A UMC81 EP1 W401 UMC114 MO17 W401 UMC95 BNL6.09 CO255 EP1 BNL14.28A CSU59A CSU25B 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F252 ILO94 OH43 BNL3.04 UMC130 EP1 BNL10.13 A632 CM105 F2 MO17 W401 UMC44A CO255 F2 BNL7.49A CO255 EP1 F252 MO17 W401 CSU48

TABLE 4B RPK7346 COMPARATIVE RFLP PROFILE Maize DB Inbreds having same alleles UMC94A 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC11 A619 B73 EP1 F252 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC157 7250 A619 B73 CM105 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC76 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 CSU59B B73 F2 F252 MO17 UMC58 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 EP1 F252 ILO904 OH43 W401 UMC67 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 BNL5.59 7250 A619 B73 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC83A 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC128 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC107A 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC84 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC161 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 BNL6.32 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 BNL7.49B F2 UMC6 7250 A632 B73 CM105 EP1 F2 F252 MO17 W401 UMC44B 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC34 7250 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 UMC131 A619 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC139 7250 A619 A632 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 OH43 W401 UMC4 7250 A619 A632 B73 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC137 7250 A619 B73 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 OH43 UMC36A 7250 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 CSU109 7250 A619 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC121 A619 A632 CM105 F2 F252 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC32A CO255 EP1 F2 F252 OH43 CSU16A 7250 A619 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC10A 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OI-I43 W401 UMC92 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC102 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 CSU30A 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 F252 ILO904 OH43 W401 UMC60 EP1 F252 MO17 BNL8.01 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC16A 7250 B73 CO255 EP1 F2 ILO904 CSU25A A619 B73 CO255 EP1 F2 ILO904 OH43 W401 UMC31 MO17 CSU19 7250 A619 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F252 OH43 BNL15.45 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC19 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC66 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC104B A619 B73 EP1 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 CSU9B 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 EP1 F2 ILO904 OH43 W401 UMC15 B73 CO255 F252 ILO904 MO17 BNL15.07 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 BNL6.25 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC107B 7250 A632 CM105 F2 F252 MO17 UMC27 7250 A619 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 OH43 W401 UMC43 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC83B 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 CSU36A B73 CO255 ILO904 MO17 W401 UMC138B 7250 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC54 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 F252 ILO904 UMC68 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 UMC104A 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 F2 F252 ILO904 OH43 UMC59 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC65 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 OH43 UMC21 A619 A632 B73 CM105 EP1 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 CSU60 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC38A 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC138A 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC132A 7250 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 CSU16B 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 EP1 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC62 A619 B73 CO255 F2 F252 ILO904 OH43 W401 UMC134A B73 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 OH43 W401 BNL8.45 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 BNL15.40 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 C0255 EP1 F2 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 CSU11 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 BNL15.21 A619 CO255 EP1 F2 MO17 UMC110 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC116 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 BNL14.07 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 BNL16.06 7250 A632 B73 CM105 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 UMC168 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 CSU27 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC35 7250 A619 B73 F2 ILO904 MO17 OH43 CSU163 7250 A632 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 MO17 W401 UMC103 7250 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 W401 UMC120 7250 A619 B73 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC124 A619 F252 OH43 W401 UMC152 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC32B B73 F2 F252 ILO904 UMC89 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC12A 7250 A632 B73 EP1 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 UMC16B 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 OH43 W401 UMC7 7250 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 UMC109 7250 A619 A632 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC113A 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC81 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 UMC114 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 OH43 UMC95 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 BNL6.09 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 BNL14.28A 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 CSU59A 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 CSU25B F2 MO17 W401 BNL3.04 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 FPI F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 UMC130 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 BNL10.13 7250 A619 B73 CO255 EP1 F252 ILO904 OH43 UMC44A 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 EP1 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401 BNL7.49A 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 F2 ILO904 OH43 CSU48 7250 A619 A632 B73 CM105 CO255 EP1 F2 F252 ILO904 MO17 OH43 W401

Table 5 shows the seed sizing profile for inbred maize line RPK7346. Included are the seed fractions corresponding to discard (plateless), rounds, and flats. Also depicted are thousand kernel weights for the flat and round seed size fractions.

TABLE 5 RPK7346 SEED SIZING PROFILE Round hole screen (18/64 inch): =6% discard Slot screen (15/64 inch): =38% rounds =56% flats Thousand kernel weight: Flats =245 grams Rounds =275 grams

EXAMPLE 1 U.S. Hybrid Performance of RPK7346

Table 6 depicts mean performance traits of maize hybrid RPG824 (ATCC Accession No. PTA-4729) and two elite maize check hybrids over 15 locations in 1999 in the north central United States. Maize hybrid RPG824 is an F₁ hybrid of a cross between inbred maize lines RPK7346 and RPK7250 (ATCC Accession No. PTA-4731). Maize hybrid RPG824 and inbred RPK7250 are disclosed in copending U.S. patent applications and are assigned to the assignee of this invention. P3893 and P3941 are the maize hybrids Pioneer 3893 and Pioneer 3941. Maize hybrid RPG824 had essentially the same harvest moisture, grain yield, stalk and root lodging percentages, and yield/moisture ratio as Pioneer 3893. However, RPG824 had a higher test weight, a higher plant height, and an ear height lower than that of either check hybrid.

TABLE 6 HYBRID PERFORMANCE OF MAIZE HYBRID RPG824* Year: 99 - State: US Multilocation Analysis of 15 locations MST YLD SL RL DE POP TW PHT EHT (%) sMST (bu/A) sYLD (%) (%) (%) (×1000) (lb/bu) Y/M (in) (in) RPG824 20.2 1.1 164 13 4 1 0 29 58 8.2 82 32 P3893 20.1 0.7 162 11 3 1 0 28 56 8.2 78 39 P3941 18.8 1.9 135 17 5 2 0 28 56 7.3 78 33 -- MEAN -- 21.0 152 3 1 0 28 55 7.5 81 35 -- STD - DEV -- 0.9 13 4 2 0 8 6 0.8 -- CV -- 4.5 8 140 239 690 29 10 10.4 FLM FLF HA EG SG (days) (days) (1-9) (1-9) (1-9) RPG824 71 71 7 9 8 P3893 72 72 8 9 8 P3941 67 68 6 8 6 -- MEAN -- 69 70 7 8 7 -- STD - DEV -- 1 1 -- CV -- 1 1 *P3893, Pioneer 3893; P3941, Pioneer 3941; RPG824, RPK7250*RPK7346; MST, grain harvest moisture; sMST, entry grain harvest moisture standard error; YLD, grain yield adjusted to 15.5% grain moisture basis; sYLD, entry grain yield standard error; SL, stalks broken below the ear; RL, stalks tilted greater than or equal to 15° from the vertical; DE, stalks with dropped ears; POP, plants/acre; TW, grain test weight; YM, ratio of YLD/MST; PHT, plant height; EHT, ear height; FLM, number of days from planting in which 50% of plants shed pollen; FLF, number of days from planting in which 50% of plants extruded silks; HA, visual (1-9) rating for appearance at harvest, 1 = least preferred expression, 9 = most preferred expression for trait; EG, visual (1-9) rating for early growth, 1 = least preferred expression, 9 = most preferred expression, for trait; and SG, visual (1-9) rating for stay green trait observed in the fall before senescence, 1 = least preferred expression, 9 = most preferred expression, for trait.

EXAMPLE 2 Performance of Hybrid RPG824 at 14 Locations in North Central United States and Ontario

Table 7 depicts the performance of maize hybrid RPG824 and check hybrids P3893 and G8975 at 14 locations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, South Dakota, and Ontario in 1999. G8975 is the maize hybrid Garst 8975. The grain yield, harvest moisture, stalk lodging score, root lodging score, and test weight of RPG824 were equal to, or better than, those of the check hybrids. The ear height of RPG824 was lower than that of Pioneer 3893 and slightly higher than that of Garst 8975. The plant height of RPG824 was higher than that of Pioneer 3893 but lower than that of Garst 8975.

TABLE 7* Locations: (2 replications/location) 14-MN, WI, SD, ONT-1999 YLD MST SL RL TW EH/PH HYBRID (bu/A) (%) (%) (%) (lb/bu) (in) RPG824 163 19.8 3 2 58 28/74 P3893 161 19.8 3 1 57 35/70 G8975 148 18.9 3 1 56 26/84 Mean 151 20.6 3 1 56 32/76 LSD (.05) 2.8 0.7 3 1.5 6.5 −/− CV 9 4.5 149 231 11 −/− *RPG824, RPK7250*RPK7346; P3893, Pioneer 3893; G8975, Garst 8975; YLD, grain yield adjusted to 15.5% grain moisture basis; MST, grain moisture at harvest; SL, percent plants broken below the ear at harvest; RL, percent plants tilted at 15°, or more, from the vertical at harvest; EH/PH, ear and plant height, respectively.

EXAMPLE 3 Performance of Maize Hybrid RPG824 in French Private Grain Trials

Tables 8-11 depict the performance of maize hybrid RPG824 in private French grain trials in 1997 and 1998. Table 8 depicts means of maize hybrid RPG824 and seven elite, check hybrids averaged over thirteen French locations in 1997. Grain moisture at harvest for RPG824 was significantly lower than those of Marignan, Twin, and Dea. The grain yield of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than that of any check hybrid. Maize hybrid RPG824 silked significantly later than all check hybrids except Anjou 285, which silked significantly later than maize hybrid RPG824. The root lodging score for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than that for Twin, but was not significantly different than those of the other check hybrids. The harvest lodging percentage for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than those of Marignan and Fanion. The early vigor rating of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly lower than that of Marignan and not significantly different than the other check hybrids. The plant height of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than all check hybrids, except Fanion.

Table 9 depicts the results of another set of private yield trials conducted at two locations in France in 1997. The mean harvest moisture and grain yield of maize hybrid RPG824 were significantly higher than those values of the three elite check hybrids. Maize hybrid RPG824 silked significantly later than the other checks and had a significantly lower root lodging score. The early vigor rating of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than that of Banguy, and not significantly different than those of the other check hybrids. Maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly taller than the other check hybrids.

Table 10 shows the average performance of maize hybrid RPG824 and two elite check hybrids in another series of private grain trials over six French locations in 1998. The grain moisture of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly lower than that of Anjou 285. The average grain yield of RPG824 was significantly higher than either elite check hybrid. Maize hybrid RPG824 silked significantly later than Fanion, but significantly earlier than Anjou 285. The harvest lodging score of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly lower than that of Fanion and the early vigor score was significantly higher than Anjou 285. The plant height of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than that of Fanion.

Table 11 depicts performance summaries of maize hybrid RPG824 and eighteen elite check varieties in another set of private grain trials summarized over four French locations in 1998. The grain moisture of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than that of Kerkenna and was significantly lower than those of the other check hybrids, except for those of Fanion and Romario. The grain yield of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than all check hybrids, except that of Romario. The silking date of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly earlier than that of Oleron, was not significantly different from those of Acores, Spitzberg, and Anjou 285, and was significantly later than those of the other check hybrids. The harvest lodging percentage of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than those of Jersey, Djerba, Banguy, Fanion, Lopez, Vancouver, Anjou 258 and Romario, and was not significantly different than the other elite check hybrids. The harvest lodging rating of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than that of Kerkenna and significantly lower than those of Djerba, Banguy, Fanion, Lopez, and Anjou 258. The early vigor score of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than those of Fernando, Carrera, and Anjou 285 and was significantly lower than those of Spitzberg, Vancouver, and Magister. The average plant height of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than all other elite check hybrids

TABLE 8 1997 FRENCH PRIVATE GRAIN TRIALS* (13 LOCATIONS) Root Silk Harvest Harvest Early Plant H20 Yield Yield Lodging Date Lodging Lodging Vigor Ht HYBRID (%) sH20 (q/ha) sYield (% CK) (1-5) (Julian) (%) (1-5) (1-5) (cm) ANJOU285 28.1 1.4 102.56 5.33 106 3.7 207 4 3.8 3.4 256 DEA 32.5 1.1 99.72 7.12 103 3.8 205 6 4.1 3.5 241 FANION 29.0 1.0 98.93 5.43 102 3.8 205 2 4.3 3.5 258 TWIN 30.0 0.8 98.86 11.77 102 3.3 205 4 4.0 3.5 244 LG2244 28.3 1.6 97.75 8.99 101 3.8 205 6 4.1 3.3 239 LG2243 28.6 0.6 89.79 7.80 93 3.7 205 9 3.8 3.6 253 MARIGNAN 29.3 1.2 88.92 9.05 92 3.7 204 3 4.1 4.0 217 RPG824 28.3 1.1 110.16 7.04 114 4.0 206 9 3.9 3.5 265 MEAN 30.4 98.20 3.7 207 5 4.0 3.5 256 LSD (.05) 0.9 6.71 0.4 1 6 0.5 0.4 9 CV 3.0 6.83 12.2 1 121 11.8 12.0 3 *H20, grain moisture at harvest; Yield adjusted to 15.5% grain moisture basis; sH20, standard error-grain moisture at harvest, entry basis; sYield, standard error, grain yield at harvest, entry basis; and Visual (1-5) ratings, 1 = least preferred expression, 5 most preferred expression, for trait.

TABLE 9 1997 FRENCH PRIVATE GRAIN TRIALS* (2 LOCATIONS) Silk Harvest Early Plant H20 Yield Yield Date Lodging Vigor Ht HYBRID (%) sH20 (q/ha) sYield (% CK) (Julian) (1-5) (1-5) (cm) FANION 36.0 0.6 95.15 4.82 108 217 5.0 3.3 263 BANGUY 36.2 0.5 85.78 4.26 97 211 4.8 3.0 234 HELIX 34.6 0.7 83.74 4.73 95 214 5.0 3.3 269 RPG824 37.5 0.0 110.24 0.75 125 218 4.2 3.3 283 MEAN 36.4 92.73 216 4.9 3.1 253 LSD (.05) 0.8 6.59 1 0.2 0.3 7 CV 2.3 7.11 0 5.1 10.1 3 *H20, grain moisture at harvest; sH2O, standard error-grain moisture at harvest, entry basis; Yield adjusted to 15.5% grain moisture basis; sYield, standard error, grain yield at harvest, entry basis; Visual (1-5) ratings, 1 = least preferred expression, 5 most preferred expression, for trait; Harvest Lodging, visual (1-5) rating of harvest lodging, 1 = least preferred expression, 9 = most preferred expression, for trait; and Early Vigor, visual rating for # early vigor, 1 = least preferred expression, 9 = most preferred expression, for trait.

TABLE 10 1998 FRENCH PRIVATE GRAIN TRIALS* (6 LOCATIONS) Silk Broken Harvest Early Plant H20 Yield Yield Date Stalks Lodging Vigor Ht HYBRID (%) sH20 (q/ha) sYield (% CK) (Julian) (%) (1-5) (1-5) (cm) ANJOU285 36.8 1.2 87.85 6.72 100 208 0 4.0 2.7 220 FANION 35.0 0.8 87.64 8.63 100 204 0 4.7 3.7 210 RPG824 34.9 1.1 97.56 4.73 111 206 0 3.9 3.5 223 MEAN 36.2 86.4 205 10 4.3 3.3 201 LSD (.05) 1.0 8.27 2 13 0.4 0.5 8 CV 2.7 9.57 1 129 8.7 14.6 4 *H20, grain moisture at harvest; sH20, standard error-grain moisture at harvest, entry basis; Yield adjusted to 15.5% grain moisture basis; sYield, standard error, grain yield at harvest, entry basis; Harvest Lodging, visual (1-5) rating of harvest lodging, 1 = least preferred expression, 9 = most preferred expression, for trait; and Early Vigor, visual rating for early vigor, # 1 = least preferred expression, 9 = most preferred expression, for trait.

TABLE 11 1998 FRENCH PRIVATE GRAIN TRIALS* (4 LOCATIONS) Silk Harvest Harvest Early Plant H20 Yield Yield Date Lodging Lodging Vigor Ht HYBRID (%) sH20 (q/ha) sYield (% CK) (Julian) (%) (1-5) (1-5) (cm) ROMARIO 34.4 0.4 114.11 5.50 112 205 7 4.4 3.8 252 MAGISTER 37.2 0.6 107.07 4.08 105 206 14 4.0 4.0 250 ANJOU258 37.3 0.2 104.61 3.12 102 206 3 4.9 3.8 260 VANCOUVER 36.0 1.1 104.13 2.38 102 206 7 4.0 4.0 245 ANJOU285 38.0 101.83 100 207 4.0 3.0 256 LOPEZ 35.3 1.0 100.13 3.12 98 204 2 4.9 3.3 244 CARRERA 37.4 0.6 99.53 3.73 97 206 11 4.4 3.0 264 FANION 33.7 1.3 99.04 9.78 97 205 5 4.6 3.8 238 BANGUY 37.1 1.1 98.28 4.40 96 203 8 4.6 3.5 240 DJERBA 36.5 0.7 97.89 2.13 96 206 4 4.6 3.5 263 LORENZO 36.0 1.0 97.36 2.95 95 205 12 4.4 3.5 253 OTTO 35.5 0.8 97.36 3.80 95 206 9 4.4 3.8 248 SPITZBERG 36.3 0.9 97.15 7.98 95 207 13 4.3 4.0 264 ACORES 37.2 0.8 96.43 7.48 94 207 12 4.3 3.5 250 KERKENNA 33.5 0.6 95.76 11.09 94 206 19 2.8 3.3 256 JERSEY 37.4 0.7 94.26 4.12 92 206 5 4.4 3.5 261 FERNANDO 36.0 0.6 93.98 11.14 92 206 12 4.3 2.3 266 OLERON 36.4 0.6 87.42 5.81 85 208 16 4.1 3.8 271 RPG824 34.1 1.2 118.11 8.60 116 207 14 4.1 3.5 280 MEAN 36.2 99.16 206 11 4.3 3.5 257 LSD (.05) 0.5 5.24 1 6 0.4 0.4 8 CV 1.5 5.28 1 56 10.5 12.4 3 *H20, grain moisture at harvest; Yield adjusted to 15.5% grain moisture basis; sH2O, standard error-grain moisture at harvest, entry basis; sYield, standard error, grain yield at harvest, entry basis; and Visual (1-5) ratings, 1 = least preferred expression, 5 = most preferred expression, for trait.

EXAMPLE 4 Performance of Maize Hybrid RPG824 in Private Austrian Trials

Table 12 summarizes the results of grain trials conducted at four Austrian locations in 1997. The harvest moisture of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly lower than that of DK300 and not significantly different than the other check hybrids. However, the grain yield of RPG824 was significantly higher than that of any check hybrid. Root lodging and harvest lodging scores of maize hybrid RPG824 were similar to those of the elite check hybrids, except the harvest lodging score of RPG824 was significantly higher than that of the check hybrid JERSEY.

TABLE 12 1997 AUSTRIAN PRIVATE GRAIN TRIALS* (4 LOCATIONS, 3 REPLICATIONS/LOCATION) Root Harvest H20 Yield Lodging Lodging HYBRID (%) sH20 (q/ha) sYield (1-5) (1-5) VANCOUVER 27.0 0.8 139.04 4.37 4.7 4.0 DK300 31.3 0.8 135.71 4.72 4.5 3.7 SPITZBERG 26.6 1.2 135.42 5.01 4.8 4.0 JERSEY 25.8 0.2 134.54 10.97 4.8 3.3 ANJOU285 26.4 1.7 134.47 6.58 4.6 4.0 ACORES 26.9 0.9 132.77 6.73 4.6 3.5 FANION 25.4 1.3 131.32 5.65 4.8 3.5 RPG824 25.3 0.9 155.74 9.18 4.6 4.0 TRIAL MEAN 27.0 134.1 4.6 3.6 LSD (.05) 1.8 15.5 0.3 0.6 CV 4 5.9 9.3 9.5 *H20, grain moisture at harvest; Yield adjusted to 15.5% grain moisture basis; sH20, standard error-grain moisture at harvest, entry basis; sYield, standard error, grain yield at harvest, entry basis; and Visual (1-5) ratings, 1 = least preferred expression, 5 = most preferred expression, for trait.

Table 13 depicts summaries of maize hybrid RPG824 and elite check hybrids in the 1998 official French grain trials. The average grain yield of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than that of any check. The average grain moisture of RPG824 was significantly lower than that of Anjou 285 and not significantly different than the others. The early vigor score of maize hybrid RPG824 was lower than that of LG 2243 and Fanion and was higher than those of the other check hybrids. The average flowering date of maize hybrid RPG824 was later than those of LG 2243, Fanion, and DK 250 and earlier than that of Anjou 285. Percentage stalk breakage at harvest for maize hybrid RPG824 was higher than those of the other elite check hybrids. Percentage smutted plants for maize hybrid RPG824 was about the same as that for LG 2244 and higher than those for the other check hybrids.

TABLE 13 1998 OFFICIAL FRENCH GRAIN TRIALS* (10 LOCATIONS, 3 REPLICATIONS/LOCATION) Early Flowering Stalk Breakage Yield Yield Moisture Vigor Date at Harvest SMUT Variety (q/ha) (% Check) (%) (1-5) (Julian) Time (%) (%) DK 250 101.3 92.1 32.6 3.2 200.0 5.4 1.7 Fanion (ck) 107.6 98.0 32.0 3.7 201.1 3.0 4.0 Anjou 285 (ck) 112.0 102.0 34.2 3.1 204.3 7.9 4.0 LG 2244 (ck) 107.8 98.2 32.7 3.3 201.6 6.5 9.0 LG 2243 104.0 94.8 32.8 3.7 200.6 2.5 7.0 Prinz 111.1 102.1 32.6 3.4 202.0 7.2 5.7 RPG824 121.3 110.2 32.5 3.5 201.9 23.4 10.7 Trial Mean 109.6 100.0 33.1 3.4 202.9 5.4 4.0 LSD (.05) 2.4 — 0.9 — — 7.9 — CV 6.2 — 2.7 — — — — Locations 10 10 10 3 5 3 1 *Yield adjusted to 15.5% grain moisture basis; Moisture, grain moisture at harvest; Visual (1-5) ratings, 1 = least preferred expression, 5 = most preferred expression, for trait; Smut measures % plants infected by common smut (Ustilago maydis); (ck) indicates official check variety

EXAMPLE 6 Performance of Maize Hybrid RPG824 in Official German Grain Trials

Table 14 summarizes the results of the 1998 official German grain trials. Maize hybrid RPG824 flowered later than the other check hybrids and was taller, except for Galice. Percentage broken stalks at harvest for RPG824 was lower than those of Fernando and Galice and higher than those of the other check hybrids. The root lodging score for maize hybrid RPG824 was lower than those of Galice, Symphony, Lenz and Harpun and was similar to those of the other check hybrids. The Fusarium score for maize hybrid RPG824 was lower than those for Symphony, Probat, Attribut, Santiago, and Lenz, was equal to that of Turkus, and was higher than those of the other check hybrids. The percentage smutted plants of maize hybrid RPG824 was higher than those of Symphony and Probat, equal to those of Fernando and Attribut, and was lower than those of the other check hybrids. The percentage of Maize Hybrid RPG824 plants infested by European Corn Borer was equal to those of Symphony, Probat, and Turkus and was higher than those of the other check hybrids. The grain yield of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than those of the other check hybrids, while the grain moisture of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly lower than that of Symphony, significantly higher than those of Fernando, Galice, Probat, and Attibut, and was equal to those of the other check hybrids.

TABLE 14 1998 OFFICIAL GERMAN GRAIN TRIALS* Broken Stalks Weight Emer- Plant at Root Fus- Corn Yield 1000 Broken gence Flowering Height Harvest Lodging Tillers/ arium SMUT Borer Yield (% Moisture Kernels Kernels Date Date (cm) (%) (%) Plant (1-5) (%) (%) (q/ha) checks) (%) (g) (%) No. Locations 15 12 14 11 1 4 7 7 5 15 15 15 7 7 HARPUN 10.05.98 10.07.98 256 3 1.8 1.3 1.4 4 7 103.2 95 69.2 310.3 2.2 TÜRKUS 10.05.98 10.07.98 256 7 1.0 16. 1.9 4 9 109.0 101 69.6 281.1 2.0 LENZ 11.05.98 09.07.98 247 6 4.0 1.1 2.3 4 4 112.5 104 69.7 310.9 2.0 Check Avg. 10.05.98 10.07.98 253 5 2.3 1.3 1.8 4 7 108.2 108 69.5 300.8 2.1 SANTIAGO 10.05.98 10.07.98 232 7 1.0 1.4 2.3 6 7 104.0 96 69.3 326.2 2.8 PRINZ 10.05.98 09.07.98 247 3 1.0 1.0 1.6 5 8 113.4 105 69.8 273.0 1.4 ATTRIBUT 10.05.98 11.07.98 262 2 1.0 1.0 2.1 3 4 111.9 103 67.4 300.3 1.8 PROBAT 11.05.98 10.07.98 254 7 1.0 1.1 3.2 1 9 112.7 104 68.4 259.4 2.4 SYMPHONY 11.05.98 09.07.98 246 5 1.3 2.9 2.1 2 9 107.8 100 70.7 276.9 2.1 GALICE 11.05.98 11.07.98 273 10  2.8 2.4 1.4 11  7 111.8 103 67.7 345.3 3.2 FERNANDO 10.05.98 12.07.98 264 13  1.0 3.7 1.2 3 8 115.7 107 68.6 283.6 4.2 RPG824 10.05.98 15.07.98 270 9 1.0 1.1 1.9 3 9 120.8 112 69.7 296.9 1.6 Mean 10.05.98 11.07.98 256 7 1.3 1.6 9.2 4 8 110.7 102 58.9 291.6 2.5 LSD (.05) — — — — — — — — — 5.1 4.8 1.0 — — CV — — — — — — — — — 5.6 5.2 3.8 — — *Root lodging, % plants tilted greater than or equal to 15° from vertical; Fusarium, visual rating of Fusarium stalk rot (Fusarium moniliforme), 1 = least preferred expression, 5 + most preferred expression, for trait; Smut, % plants infected by common smut (Ustilago maydis); Corn borer, % plants infected by 2d Brood European Corn Borer (Ostrinia nubilalis); and Yield adjusted to 15.5% grain moisture basis.

EXAMPLE 7 Performance of Maize Hybrid RPG824 in Official Austrian Grain Trials

Table 15 depicts a summary of the 1998 official Austrian grain trials. In this series of trials, grain yields were reported as percentages of the average of the check hybrids. The percent yield of RPG824 was significantly higher than those of Anjou 228, Anjou 246, and LG 22.75 and not significantly different than the others. Maize hybrid RPG824 had a higher percentage of broken stalks at harvest and a lower grain moisture than the check hybrids.

TABLE 15 1998 OFFICIAL AUSTRIAN GRAIN TRIALS* % Yield/ Broken Plants Grain 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Average at Harvest (%) Moisture (%) Location WUL RIT ST. EPE MAR PAS GLE MOO JAK Mean N Mean N MIT N ROMARIO (%) 115 108 104 104 108 103 106 101 102 106 9 6.7 8 29.5 9 TRENTO (%) 105 101 113 101 95 99 99 111 103 103 9 4.6 8 30.7 9 PROBAT (%) 111 98 107 95 98 100 99 109 104 103 9 7.1 8 30.3 9 LG 22.75 (%) 100 97 97 95 106 94 98 114 107 101 9 3.7 8 31.5 9 ANJOU 246 (%) 101 98 98 99 108 96 95 103 106 101 9 4.9 8 31.3 9 ANJOU 228 (%) 101 95 97 97 102 101 83 88 105 96 9 2.1 8 29.3 9 RPG824 (%) 112 112 107 105 117 107 103 102 114 109 9 8.6 8 28.7 9 Mean (q/ha) 112 128 115 127 120 131 133 116 129 123 — — — — — LSD (.05) 7 6 9 8 7 8 9 10 7 7.8 — — — — — CV 4.5 3.4 5.6 4.5 6.2 6.6 4.9 6.2 3.9 4.6 — — — — — *Percent grain yield of check average

EXAMPLE 8 Performance of Maize Hybrid RPG824 in 1998 Official Swiss Grain Trials

Table 16 summarizes the results of the 1998 official Swiss grain trials. The early vigor score of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly lower than those of Kallista and Frivol and was significantly higher than that of Monopol. Plant and ear heights of maize hybrid RPG824 were significantly higher than those of the other elite check hybrids. The grain yield of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than those of the other check hybrids and the harvest moisture of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly lower. The percent smutted plants of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly lower than that of Monopol. The ratio of ear height to plant height of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than those of the other check varieties. The flowering date of hybrid RPG824 was significantly later than those of LG 2227, LG 2243, Frivol, and Monopol and not significantly different from the others.

TABLE 16 1998 OFFICIAL SWISS GRAIN TRIALS* Stalk Early Plant Ear Broken Shelling Fusarium Average Vigor Height Height Plants Ability Yield Yield Moisture Index Index (1-5) (cm) (cm) (1-5) (1-5) (g/ha) (% Check Mean) (%) Monopol 0.02 0.83 2.2 238 102  1.1 1.9 123.9 99.9 69.7 LG 22.40 −0.02 −0.83 3.3 237 104  1.7 1.0 124.2 100.1 69.5 Frivol −0.68 −9.26 3.8 210 89 1.3 1.9 114.6 92.4 69.6 LG 22.43 −0.92 −4.53 2.8 223 97 2.0 0.9 122.2 98.5 69.0 Kallista −0.82 −2.00 4.1 227 96 1.8 1.3 122.9 99.1 70.1 LG 22.27 −0.64 −1.10 3.1 233 102  1.6 1.1 121.5 98.0 70.4 RPG824 −0.39 13.62 3.1 283 132  2.0 1.3 146.3 117.9 68.5 CV 2.4 3  4 49.5 44.6 5.3 0.9 LSD (.05) 0.4 .2  8 0.5 4.0 0.4 Root Lodging at Broken SMUT Fusarium Ear Height/ Flowering (Female) Lodging (%) Harvest (%) Plants (%) (%) (%) Plants/m² Plant Height (%) (Days From Planting) Monopol 5.6 0.1 1.2 11.2 1.6 9.4 43.0 72.7 LG 22.40 1.1 0.1 2.2 2.5 1.2 9.5 43.9 73.2 Frivol 2.2 0.3 1.1 4.5 4.4 9.3 42.7 72.3 LG 22.43 1.4 0.3 3.7 2.2 5.4 9.5 43.6 72.5 Kallista 2.8 0.1 2.4 2.7 5.0 9.5 42.2 74.6 LG 22.27 1.4 0.2 2.4 2.3 4.2 9.6 43.7 72.8 RPG824 4.2 0.4 3.6 0.3 3.3 9.6 47.0 74.2 CV 88.5 293.2 172.2 110.6 77.9 2.8 4.1 1.1 LSD (.05) 3.6 0.6 3.6 4.5 2.9 0.2 3.1 1.4 *Yield, adjusted to a 15.5% grain moisture basis; Root lodging, % plants tilted greater than or equal to 15°; Broken plants, % plants broken below the ear at harvest; Smut, % plants infected with common smut (Ustilago maydis); Fusarium, % plants infected with Fusarium stalk rot (Fusarium moniliforme); and Visual ratings, lowest number = least preferred expression, highest number = most preferred expression, for the trait.

EXAMPLE 9 Performance of Maize Hybrid RPG824 in The Netherlands Official Grain Trials

Table 17 shows summarized results of the Netherlands 1998 official grain trials. The early vigor rating for maize hybrid RPG824 was higher than those of LG 2184, DK 210, and Kallista and was lower than those of the other check hybrids. The harvestability rating for maize hybrid RPG824 was higher than those of DK 210, Menno, and Pongo and was lower than the other check hybrids. The ease of shelling rating for maize hybrid RPG824 was lower than those of Manatan and Husar and was higher than those of the other check hybrids. Plant and ear heights of maize hybrid RPG824 were higher than those of the check hybrids. Grain dry matter percent of maize hybrid RPG824 was higher than those of LG 2184, Kallista, and Pongo, equal to those of DK 210 and Fanion, and less than those of the other check hybrids. The grain yield of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly lower than that of Symphony, equal to that of DK210, and significantly higher than those of the other check hybrids.

TABLE 17 THE NETHERLANDS 1998 OFFICIAL GRAIN TRIALS* Plants Early Harvest- Ease of Plant Ear Emerged Vigor ability Shelling Height Height Dry Matter Yield (%) (Rating) (Rating) (Rating) (% Checks) (% Checks) (% Checks) (% Checks) Fanion 94 6.5 8.5 7.6 105 108 99 97 Pongo 94 6.6 5.2 6.6 103 103 97 99 Menno 97 6.8 5.1 7.2 103 102 100 99 Symphony 99 6.5 8.3 7.6  98  90 101 108 Husar 97 7.5 8.6 8.1 101  99 105 95 Kallista 97 5.0 8.7 6.7 104  96 97 98 Manatan 94 7.6 8.6 7.9  89 101 102 96 DK 210 85 5.4 3.4 6.6 100  97 99 106 LG 21.84 95 5.0 8.4 5.6  99  99 98 101 RPG824 97 5.8 5.6 7.8 118 116 99 104 MEAN — — — — 246 (cm) 94 (cm) 66.5(%) 92 (q/ha) CV — — — — — — 1.1 4.0 LSD (.05) — — — — — — 0.5 2.5 *Ratings, lowest number = least preferred expression, highest number = most preferred expression, for the trait; Dry matter, dry matter of grain at harvest as % check mean; and Yield adjusted to 15.5% grain moisture basis and expressed as % check mean.

EXAMPLE 10 Performance of Maize Hybrid RPG824 in French Private Silage Trials

Table 18 depicts summarized results of private silage trials conducted at six French locations in 1997. The stover yield of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than those of the other elite checks and the root lodging score of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly lower. The plant height of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than those of Marignan, LG 2243, Banguy, and Anjou 285 and significantly lower than that of Anjou 265. The estimate for energy available for milk production for RPG824 was significantly higher than the estimate for Anjou 285 and was significantly lower than the estimate for Fanion. The digestibility estimate for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than the estimate for Anjou 285 and significantly lower than that for Fanion.

TABLE 18 1997 FRENCH PRIVATE SILAGE TRIALS* (6 LOCATIONS) Units Dry Root Harvest Early Plant Available Milk Matter Stover Lodging Lodging Vigor Height Production Digestibility Starch (%) (t/ha) (1-5) (%) (1-5) (cm) (Ratio)(UFL) (DMO) (%)(AMI) ANJOU285 31.0 16.3 3.5 −0 3.8 265 0.931 73.21 26.49 ANJOU265 30.9 16.3 5.0 −0 4.0 290 BEMOL 32.6 15.8 4.5 −0 4.0 280 0.940 73.61 28.10 FANION 31.8 15.0 5.0 −0 3.9 270 0.962 74.92 27.57 BANGUY 32.3 14.4 4.0 −0 3.9 240 LG2243 32.3 14.3 4.0 −0 3.6 260 0.957 74.54 29.28 MARIGNAN 31.3 13.5 5.0 −0 4.1 205 RPG824 31.3 17.7 1.5 −0 3.9 275 0.948 74.17 27.70 MEAN 30.9 15.4 3.7  1 3.7 267 0.950 74.23 28.06 LSD (.05) 1.2 1.2 0.7  4 0.4  10 0.014 0.74 2.22 CV 3.8 7.8 18.6 563  12.2  4 1.488 0.99 7.91 *Visual ratings, lowest number = least preferred expression, highest number = most preferred expression, for trait.

EXAMPLE 11 Performance of Maize Hybrid RPG824 in German Private Silage Trials

Table 19 summarizes the results of private silage trials conducted at one location in Germany in 1997. The stover yield estimate for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than those of the check hybrids. The early vigor score for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly lower than those for Banguy and Helix. The flowering date of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly later than those of the check hybrids and the plant height of RPG824 was significantly higher.

TABLE 19 1997 GERMAN PRIVATE SILAGE TRIALS* (1 LOCATION) Dry Root Early Plant Matter Stover Lodging Vigor Flowering Height (%) (t/ha) (1-5) (1-5) (Julian) (cm) FANION 38.1 15.2 5.0 3.3 210 245 HELIX 37.9 14.8 5.0 3.5 209 253 BANGUY 38.3 14.5 5.0 3.7 207 230 RPG824 38.1 19.4 5.0 3.0 212 273 MEAN 37.4 15.7 5.0 3.3 211 250 LSD (.05) 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.4 1 7 CV 2.5 3.8 0.0 11.6 1 3 *Visual ratings, lowest number = least preferred expression, highest number = most preferred expression, for trait.

EXAMPLE 12 Performance of Maize Hybrid RPG824 in Belgian Private Silage Trials

Table 20 summarizes the performance of maize hybrid RPG824 in silage trials at three Belgian locations in 1997. With the exception of LG 2243, the percent dry matter of hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than those of the other check hybrids. Stover yields of maize hybrid RPG824 were significantly higher than those of the other check hybrids. The digestibilities for maize hybrid RPG824 were significantly lower than those for LG 2243 and Banguy and the starch percentage estimate was significantly lower than that for Banguy.

TABLE 20 1997 BELGIAN PRIVATE SILAGE TRIALS* (3 LOCATIONS) Dry Stover Digestibility Starch Matter (%) (t/ha) (DMO) (%) AMI FANION 33.1 20.7 80.53 18.41 LG2252 34.3 20.0 79.74 17.30 BANGUY 34.2 19.5 82.64 19.21 LG2243 35.7 19.2 80.92 17.70 SYMPHONY 34.0 18.6 80.91 18.10 RPG824 35.4 24.7 79.84 18.07 MEAN 35.0 20.5 80.29 18.08 LSD (.05) 0.9 0.9 1.08 0.88 CV 2.5 4.2 1.34 4.87

EXAMPLE 13 Performance of Maize Hybrid RPG824 in German Private Silage Trials

Table 21 depicts summaries of private German silage trials conducted at two locations in 1998. The dry matter percentage estimate for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than those for Jersey, Fernando, Carrera, Fanion, Vancouver, Oleron, Magister, and Spitzberg and significantly lower than those for Djerba, Lopez, and Kerkenna. The stover yield estimate for maize hybrid RPG824 was not significantly different from that of Romario and was significantly higher than those for the other check hybrids. The root lodging score for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than that of only Fernando. The harvest lodging score for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than those for Fernando, Acoris, and Carrera. The early vigor rating for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than that for Jersey, was not significantly different from those of Anjou 258, Djerba, Carrera, Banguy, Acordis, and Fernando, and was significantly lower than the other check hybrids. The flowering date for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly later than those of Romario, Lopez, Djerba, Fanion, and Banguy, significantly earlier than those of Vancouver, Carrera, and Fernando, and not significantly different than the other check hybrids. The plant height of maize hybrid RPG824 was not significantly different from that of Djerba, but was significantly greater than those of the other check hybrids. The digestibility estimate for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly lower than those for Anjou 258, Spitzberg, Otto, Magister, Vancouver, Lorenzo, Fanion, and Banguy and was not significantly different than those of the other check hybrids. The percentage starch estimate for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly lower than those for Lopez, Otto, Magister, and Lorenzo and was not significantly different than the other check hybrids.

TABLE 21 1998 GERMAN PRIVATE SILAGE TRIALS* (2 LOCATIONS) Dry Root Harvest Early Plant Matter Stover Lodging Lodging Vigor Flowering Height Digestibility Starch (%) (t/ha) (1-5) (%) (1-5) (Julian) (cm) (DMO) (%) (AMI) ROMARIO 35.3 19.9 5.0 5.0 3.5 206 266 68.78 30.09 ANJOU258 34.2 18.6 5.0 5.0 3.0 207 268 69.12 28.85 SPITZBERG 33.7 18.3 5.0 5.0 4.0 207 265 70.06 29.18 KERKENNA 38.6 18.3 5.0 5.0 3.3 207 271 68.09 31.08 LOPEZ 36.8 17.9 5.0 5.0 4.0 205 253 69.08 33.61 OTTO 34.7 17.8 5.0 5.0 3.3 207 263 70.81 35.04 MAGISTER 32.9 17.6 5.0 5.0 4.0 207 260 70.93 33.21 DJERBA 36.2 17.5 5.0 5.0 3.0 206 275 66.66 28.80 OLERON 33.8 17.3 5.0 5.0 4.0 207 265 66.91 28.22 VANCOUVER 32.6 17.2 5.0 5.0 3.8 208 256 69.35 29.65 LORENZO 34.9 17.1 5.0 5.0 3.5 207 256 70.53 32.87 FANION 33.0 17.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 205 248 69.43 30.68 CARRERA 33.8 16.9 5.0 4.5 2.8 208 263 68.01 29.45 BANGUY 34.3 16.9 5.0 5.0 3.0 205 246 70.17 31.26 ACORIS 34.3 16.7 5.0 4.7 3.0 207 253 67.06 30.40 FERNANDO 32.9 16.7 4.5 3.5 3.0 208 264 68.42 29.10 JERSEY 33.5 15.5 5.0 5.0 2.3 207 264 68.42 30.96 RPG824 34.9 19.8 5.0 5.0 2.8 207 279 67.54 29.98 MEAN 34.3 17.6 5.0 4.9 3.3 207 261 68.76 30.54 LSD (.05) 1.1 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.5  1  7 1.58 2.48 CV 3.2 5.9 2.8 5.1 13.8  1  3 2.30 8.13 *Visual ratings, lowest number = least preferred expression, highest number = most preferred expression, for trait.

EXAMPLE 14 Performance of Maize Hybrid RPG824 in German Official Silage Trial.s

Table 22 summarizes the results of the 1998 German official silage trials. Maize hybrid RPG824 flowered later than any other check hybrid and had a higher plant height. The cold susceptibility rating for maize hybrid RPG824 was equal to those for Prinz, lower than those of Symphony, and greater than those of the other check hybrids. The percentage lodging at harvest for RPG824 was less than that for Fernando, equal to that of Galice, and greater than those of other check hybrids. The Fusarium rating for maize hybrid RPG824 was less than those for Symphony, Probat, and Lenz, equal to that for Fernando, and greater than those for the other check hybrids. The rating for smutted plants for maize hybrid RPG824 was equal to or greater than those for Fernando, Symphony, Probat, Attribut, Santiago, and Harpun and was less than those for the other check hybrids. The Ostrinia ratings of maize hybrid RPG824 was higher than that of any check. European Corn Borer ratings of maize hybrid RPG824 were less than those for Fernando, Probat, Prinz, Santiago, and Turkus and were equal to or greater than those of the other checks. The stover yield estimate for maize hybrid RPG824 was similar to that for Fernando, less than that for Galice, and greater than those of the other check hybrids. The dry matter yield of maize hybrid RPG824 was higher than those of the check hybrids and the dry matter percentage estimate for maize hybrid RPG824 was equal to the average of the checks.

TABLE 22 1998 GERMAN OFFICIAL SILAGE TRIALS* Plant Cold Harvest Emergence Flowering Height Susceptibility Lodging Tillers/ Fusarium SMUT Date Date (cm) (Rating) (%) Plant (Rating) (Ratings) No. Locations 15 14 13 3 8 11 3 5 HARPUN 10.05.98 14.07.98 257 2.2 1 1.2 1.0 3 TÜRKIS 10.05.98 14.07.98 257 1.8 2 1.4 1.0 5 LENZ 10.05.98 13.07.98 244 2.0 1 1.2 1.6 5 Check Avg. 10.05.98 14.07.98 253 2.0 1 1.3 1.2 4 SANTIAGO 10.05.98 14.07.98 233 1.8 0 1.3 1.0 2 PRINZ 10.05.98 13.07.98 249 2.3 0 1.2 1.6 4 ATTRIBUT 10.05.98 16.07.98 261 1.7 0 1.0 1.0 2 PROBAT 10.05.98 14.07.98 255 1.9 1 1.1 1.7 0 SYMPHONY 10.05.98 12.07.98 244 2.5 1 2.7 1.5 2 GALICE 10.05.98 16.07.98 276 1.6 4 2.4 1.0 9 FERNANDO 10.05.98 16.07.98 269 2.0 7 2.0 1.3 3 RPG824 10.05.98 19.07.98 277 2.3 4 1.4 1.3 3 Ostrinia European Corn Borer Stover Dry Matter Dry Matter Starch Starch/Check (Rating) (Rating) (dt/ha) (dt/ha) (%) (%) (%) No. Locations 1 5 12 12 12 12 12 HARPUN 1.0 2 622 198.6 32.2 30.0  97 TÜRKIS 1.0 4 596 197.6 33.6 31.4 101 LENZ 1.5 2 598 197.8 33.5 31.6 102 Check Avg. 1.2 3 605 198.0 33.1 31.0  31 SANTIAGO 1.5 4 607 197.6 33.2 33.2 107 PRINZ 1.0 4 598 198.8 33.6 33.2 107 ATTRIBUT 2.0 2 639 213.1 33.9 29.3  95 PROBAT 1.5 4 582 196.5 34.3 34.3 111 SYMPHONY 1.0 3 564 192.1 34.4 34.7 112 GALICE 1.5 3 697 209.9 30.6 29.2  94 FERNANDO 1.0 4 666 214.4 32.4 31.3 101 RPG824 2.5 3 668 218.6 33.1 31.7 102 *Visual ratings, lowest number = least desired expression, highest number = most desired expression, for trait; Fusarium, rating for Fusarium stalk rot (Fusarium moniliforme); Smut, rating for infection by common smut (Ustilago maydis); Ostrinia, rating for Asian Corn Borer (Ostrinia furnacalis); and European corn borer, rating for European Corn Borer (Ostrinia nubilalis).

EXAMPLE 15 Performance of Maize Hybrid RPG824 in Swiss Official Silage Trials

Table 23 summarizes the performance of maize hybrid RPG824 in the 1998 Swiss official silage trials over sixteen locations. Maize hybrid RPG824 had a significantly higher early vigor score than Silpro and Accent and a significantly higher plant height than any check hybrid. The ear height of maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than those of the checks, except in the case of Silpro. The visual rating for lodging for maize hybrid RPG824 was not significantly different than that for Silpro, was significantly lower than that for Goldmeru, and was significantly higher than those of the other check hybrids. The digestibility estimate for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly lower than that for Attribut, Accent, and Goldmeru and not significantly different than the other check hybrids. The starch estimate for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than those for LG 2265 and Accent, was significantly lower than that for Goldmeru, and not significantly different than those of the other checks. The percentage grain expressed on a dry matter basis estimate for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly lower than those for Silpro, LG 2265, and Goldmeru and significantly higher than that for Attribut. The cellulose estimate for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than that for Goldmeru. The NDF estimate for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than those for Attribut and Goldmeru. The total nitrogen matter estimate for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than that for Attribut and significantly lower than those for Silpro and Goldmeru. The total stover yield and total dry matter yield estimates for maize hybrid RPG824 were significantly higher than those for the check hybrids. The percent dry matter estimate for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly lower than those for Goldmeru, Accent, Attribut, and LG 2265. The ear height/plant height ratio for maize hybrid RPG824 was significantly higher than those for Goldmeru and Attribut. Maize hybrid RPG824 silked one day later than Attribut and Accent and two days later than Goldmeru. The energy for milk and energy for meat estimates for maize hybrid RPG824 were significantly lower than those of the check hybrids, except for those of Silpro.

TABLE 23 1998 SWISS OFFICIAL SILAGE TRIALS (16 LOCATIONS) % GRAIN EARLY VIGOR PLANT HEIGHT EAR HEIGHT LODGING STARCH (Dry Matter (1-5) (cm) (cm) (Visual Score) DIGESTIBILITY (g/kg) Basis) GOLDMERU 2.1 243 102 4.0 753.8 278 49 ACCENT 3.4 240 107 1.7 752.0 353 46 ATTRIBUT 2.4 263 110 1.6 755.3 362 43 LG22.65 2.4 258 110 1.4 750.2 351 47 SILPRO 3.0 276 127 3.0 743.7 368 49 RPG824 3.5 293 132 3.4 744.0 364 46 CV % 25.2  2  4 36.7 1.3  3  4 LSD (.05) 0.5  11  7 1.0 7.1  9  1 LSD (.01) 0.6  14  10 1.3 9.4  12  2 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL DRY ROOT HARVEST BROKEN CELLULOSE NDF NITROGEN STOVER MATTER % DRY LODGING LODGING PLANTS (g/kg) (g/kg) (g/kg) (dt/ha) (dt/ha) MATTER (%) (%) (%) GOLDMERU 161 383 67 574.2 201.1 35.2 0.0 0.3 0.8 ACCENT 187 398 65 621.6 213.9 34.6 5.0 −0.0 1.3 ATTRIBUT 182 389 62 661.0 229.7 34.9 6.8 0.1 1.1 LG22.65 184 396 63 647.8 224.9 34.9 5.0 0.0 1.7 SILPRO 182 394 70 639.2 212.3 33.3 3.5 −0.9 1.1 RPG824 185 396 64 722.4 239.6 33.4 4.5 2.8 2.1 CV %  3  3  4 4.3 4.0 2.4 97.5 206.0 194.9 LSD (.05)  4  6  2 18.6 6.0 0.6 0.5 LSD (.01)  5  10  2 24.6 8.0 0.8 0.7 EAR HEIGHT/PLANT FLOWERING FEMALE ENERGY FOR MILK ENERGY FOR MEAT PLANTS/M² HEIGHT (%) (Days From Planting) (mJ/kg) (mJ/kg) GOLDMERU 9.9 42 72 7.0 7.3 ACCENT 10.6 44 73 6.9 7.3 ATTRIBUT 10.5 42 73 7.0 7.3 LG22.65 10.6 43 74 6.9 7.3 SILPRO 9.9 47 74 6.8 7.2 RPG824 10.4 45 74 6.8 7.2 CV % 4.5  3  1 1.7 2.1 LSD (.05) 0.3  3  1 0.1 0.1 LSD (.01) 0.4  3  2 0.1 0.1

EXAMPLE 16 Performance of Maize Hybrid RPG824 in Belgian Official Silage Trials

Table 24 summarizes the results of the 1998 Belgian official silage trials. The stover yield of maize hybrid RPG824 was higher than those of the checks and with the exception of Anjou 258, the earliness rating was lower. The early vigor score of maize hybrid RPG824 was higher than those for LG 2243, Mercator, and Banguy, and was lower than those of the other checks. Maize hybrid RPG824 had the lowest percentage smutted plants, the highest plant height and the highest ear height. With the exception of Anjou 258, maize hybrid RPG824 was later in flowering than the other checks. Again with the exception of Anjou 258, maize hybrid RPG824 had the lowest dry matter percentage.

To summarize, the exemplary maize hybrid having RPK7346 as an inbred parent produces consistently high grain and stover yields over a wide series of environments, dries down exceptionally well, and has average to excellent standability.

TABLE 24 1998 BELGIAN OFFICIAL SILAGE TRIALS Variety Stover Yield (kg/ha) Yield (% Checks) Earliness (Rating) Lodging (Arcsin %) Anjou 258 22438.7 105.1 31.9 1.8 Banguy 20912.4 98.0 34.6 0.0 Dirk 21439.2 100.5 34.0 1.8 Mercator 21424.0 100.4 34.2 1.8 LG 22.43 20500.8 96.1 33.8 0.0 RPG824 23031.9 107.9 32.9 0.0 Flowering Early Plant Ear (Days) Stalk Harvest Dry Vigor SMUT Height Height (Deviations Fusarium Lodging Matter Yield/ Variety (1-9) (%) (cm) (cm) From Checks) (%) (%) (%) Checks Anjou 258 7.2 0.8 272 104 3.7 0.0 0.3 92.2 109.2 Banguy 6.4 0.5 247  91 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.9 101.8 Dirk 7.2 0.9 259 114 −0.7 0.0 0.3 98.3 104.4 Mercator 6.7 0.8 256 111 1.0 0.0 0.3 98.9 104.3 LG 22.43 6.6 1.4 260 102 2.7 0.2 0.0 97.6 99.8 RPG824 6.9 0.3 281 120 3.3 0.0 0.0 95.0 112.1

FURTHER EMBODIMENTS OF THE INVENTION Grain and Silage Production

This invention is contemplated to include producing stover and grain when hybrids with RPK7346 as a parent are grown. Typically seed of these hybrids is planted in soil with adequate moisture to support germination, emergence, and subsequent growth and development. Alternatively, soil moisture is added by irrigation. Normal cultural practices to achieve proper soil fertility and manage weeds, insects, and diseases may be undertaken during the growing season as necessary. These cultural practices are known to persons of skill in the art and vary widely according to particular geographic regions, grower preferences, and economic considerations. The corn plants may be chopped for silage, typically when the developing grain is at the half-milk stage. When the grain is physiologically mature, it is harvested, usually with combines, then dried to a moisture content sufficiently low for storage. The grain may then be used for feed, food, and industrial purposes, examples of which are disclosed herein.

Derivation

This invention is considered to include processes of developing derived maize inbred lines and plants, seeds, and parts resulting thereof. Processes of developing derived inbred lines include those processes wherein single genes or alleles or some small plurality of genes or alleles are introgressed into RPK7346, resulting in a derived inbred which expresses the introgressed gene(s) or allele(s) (i.e. trait(s)), but otherwise retains the phenotype and genotype of RPK7346 described herein. Examples of introgressed genes or alleles include insect or disease resistance, genes from other maize plants, or alleles or genes originating from other species. Non-limiting examples of these genes or alleles are disclosed in Coe et al., “The Genetics of Corn,” IN Corn and Corn Improvement, G. F. Sprague and J. W. Dudley, Editors, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wis. (1988), the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference. Other nonlimiting examples of genes or alleles which might be introgressed into the present invention are disclosed hereinbelow. Methods of introgression may include such protocols as backcrossing, tissue culture to induce somoclonal variation, impaling plant cells with needle-like bodies, use of indeterminate gametophyte, anther culture, and transformation.

Backcrossing protocols are disclosed, e.g., in above-referenced and above-incorporated F. N. Briggs and P. F. Knowles, Introduction to Plant Breeding, Reinhold Publishing Company, New York (1967), R. W. Allard, Principles of Plant Breeding, Wiley and Sons, New York (1960), N. W. Simmonds, Principles of Crop Improvement, Longman Group, Ltd., London (1979); and J. M. Poehlman, Breeding Field Crops, 2d Ed., AVI Publishing Co., Inc. Westport, Conn. (1979). Use of indeterminate gametophyte-facilitated (ig1) introgression of cytologically inherited traits is disclosed by, e.g., J. L. Kermicle, “Androgenesis Conditioned by a Mutation in Maize,” Science 166: 1422-1424 (1969) and at Maize DB website (www.agron.missouri.edu), each hereby incorporated by reference. Exemplary protocols suitable for inducing somoclonal variation are discussed hereinbelow.

Isolated microspore, anther culture and regeneration of fertile maize plants are disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,445,961 to Genovesi et al. Introgression protocols using anther culture are disclosed, e.g., by Barnabas et al., “Ultrastructural Studies on Pollen Embryogenesis in Maize (Zea mays L)”, Plant Cell Rep. 6: 212-215 (1987); Dieu et al., “Further Studies of Androgenetic Embryo Production and Plant Regeneration From In Vitro Cultured Anthers in Maze (Zea mays L.),” Maydica 31: 245-259 (1986); Pace et al., “Anther Culture of Maize and the Visualization of Embryogenic Microspores by Fluorescent Microscopy,” Theor. Appl. Genet. 73: 863-869 (1987); Petolino et al., “Anther Culture of Elite Genotypes of Maize,” Crop Sci. 26: 1072-1074 (1986); and Tsay et al., “Factors Affecting Haploid Plant Regeneration from Maize Anther Culture,” J. Plant Physiol. 126: 33-40 (1986), the disclosures of each hereby incorporated by reference.

Exemplary transformation protocols are disclosed, e.g., by U.S. Pat. No. 5,302,523 to Coffee et al. (transformed maize via needle-like bodies); U.S. Pat. No. 5,384,253 to Krzyzek et al. (electroporation); U.S. Pat. No. 5,371,003 to Murray et al. (transformation via tissues within horizontal electrophoresis gel in the presence of non-pulsed electric current); U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,616 to Hiei et al. (Agrobacterium-mediated transformation); U.S. Pat. No. 5,569,597 to Grimsley et al. (Agrobacterium-mediated maize transformation); U.S. Pat. No. 5,877,023 to Sautter et al. (microprojectile-facilitated transformation); U.S. Pat. No. 5,736,369 to Bowen et al. (microprojectile-facilitated transformation); U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,886, and 5,990,387 to Tomes et al. (microprojectile-facilitated transformation); U.S. Pat. No. 5,776,900 to Shillito et al. (regeneration of maize protoplasts transformed with electroporation and polyethylene glycol (PEG)); U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,767,367 and 5,792,936 to Dudits et al. (regeneration of PEG-transformed protoplasts of auxin-autrotrophic maize genotype); U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,780,708 and 5,990,390 to Lundquist et al. (fertile, microprojectile-facilitated transgenic maize plants expressing dalapon resistance); U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,780,709 and 5,919,675 to Adams et al. (microprojectile- and electroporation-facilitated maize transformants); U.S. Pat. No. 5,932,782 to Bidney (microprojectile-delivered Agrobacterium); U.S. Pat. No. 5,981,840 to Zhao et al. (Agrobacterium-transformed maize); and U.S. Pat. No. 5,994,624 to Trolinder et al. (maize transformation via recombinant Agrobacterium DNA injected into plant tissues via needleless injection device), the contents of each hereby incorporated by reference. An exemplary transformation protocol is more fully disclosed hereinbelow.

Further Uses

This invention is also contemplated to include processes or methods of producing a maize plant by crossing a first parent maize plant with a second parent maize plant in which the first or second parent maize plant is the inbred maize line RPK7346. Moreover, both the first and second parent maize plants may include the inbred maize line RPK7346.

This invention is also directed to processes or methods of producing an RPK7346-derived maize plant or an inbred maize plant with RPK7346 as a parent in at least one of the initial breeding crosses accomplished by crossing inbred maize line RPK7346 with a second maize plant and growing the progeny seed. The method may further include repeating crossing and growing the RPK7346-derived plant until the substantial genotype of RPK7346 is recovered. Thus, any methods using the inbred maize line RPK7346 are contemplated to be within the scope of this invention, e.g., selfing, backcrossing, hybrid production, crosses to other hybrids, inbreds, populations, and the like. All plants produced using inbred maize line RPK7346 as a parent are contemplated to be within the scope of this invention, including plants derived from inbred maize line RPK7346. It should be further understood that inbred maize line RPK7346 can, through routine manipulation known to skilled persons in the art, be produced in a male-sterile form and that such embodiments are contemplated to be within the scope of the present invention as well.

As used herein, the term “plant” includes whole or entire plants and parts thereof. Such exemplary plant parts may include plant cells, plant protoplasts, plant cell tissue cultures, plant calli, plant clumps, plant cell suspension cultures, and plant protoplasts. Also included within the definition of the term “plant” are plant cells present in plants or parts of plants, e.g., zygotes, embryos, embryonic organs, pollen, ovules, flowers, seeds, ears, cobs, leaves, husks, stalks, roots, root tips, anthers, and silks.

Tissue Culture of Maize

Regeneration of maize plants by tissue culture methods is now an exercise requiring only routine experimentation to a person skilled in the art. For example, Duncan et al. (Planta 165:322-332 (1985)) reported 97% of the plant genotypes cultured produced calli capable of plant regeneration. Plants were regenerated from 91% of the calli from another set of inbreds and hybrids in a subsequent experiment.

Songstad et al., (Plant Cell Reports, 7:262-265 (1988)) reported several media additions enhancing regenerability of callus of two inbred lines. Other published reports also indicated “nontraditional” tissues capable of producing somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration. For example, Rao, et al. (Maize Genetics Cooperation Newsletter, 60:64-65 (1986)) reported somatic embryogenesis from glume callus cultures. Conger, et al. (Plant Cell Reports, 6:345-347 (1987)) reported somatic embryogenesis from tissue cultures of maize leaf segments. Thus, it is clear that the state of the art is such that these tissue culture methods of obtaining regenerated plants are routinely used with very high rates of success.

Maize tissue culture is described generally in European Patent Application, Publication 160,390, hereby incorporated by reference and with respect to inbred line B73 in U.S. Pat. No. 5134,074 to Gordon et al. Maize tissue culture procedures are also described by Green et al., “Plant Regeneration in Tissue Culture of Maize,” Maize for Biological Research (Plant Molecular Biology Association, Charlottesville, Va. 1982, at 367-372) and by Duncan, et al., “The Production of Callus Capable of Plant Regeneration from Immature Embryos of Numerous Zea Mays Genotypes,” 165 Planta 322-332 (1985), each hereby incorporated by reference. Thus, another aspect of this invention is to provide cells which undergo growth and differentiation and subsequently produce maize plants with the physiological and morphological characteristics of inbred maize line RPK7346.

Somaclonal variation within inbred lines which have undergone tissue culture and regeneration have been reported by Edallo et al. (“Chromosome Variation and Frequency of Spontaneous Mutants Associated With In Vitro Culture and Plant Regeneration in Maize,” Maydica 26: 39-56 (1981)); McCoy et al. (“Chromosome Stability in Maize (Zea Mays L.) Tissue Culture and Sectoring in Some Regenerated Plants,” Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 24: 559-565 (1982)), Earle et al. (“Somaclonal Variation in Progeny of Plants From Corn Tissue Culture,” pp. 139-152, In R. R. Henke et al. (ED.) Tissue Culture in Forestry and Agriculture, Plenum Press, N.Y. (1985)); and Lee et al. (“Agronomic Evaluation of Inbred Lines Derived From Tissue Cultures of Maize,” Theor. Appl. Genet. 75: 841-849 (1988)), the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference. Hence, genetic variation and derived lines may be developed from this invention by tissue culture protocols.

The utility of inbred maize line RPK7346 also extends to crosses with other species. Suitable species will be of the family Gramineae, and especially genera such as Zea, Tripsacum, Coix, Schlerachne, Polytoca, Chionachne, and Trilobachne, of the tribe Maydeae. Potentially suitable for crosses with inbred maize line RPK7346 may be the various varieties of grain sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench.

Transformation of Maize

Molecular biological techniques now allow genes encoding specific protein products to be isolated and characterized. It has long been viewed as advantageous to modify maize plant genomes to contain and express foreign genes, or additional, or modified versions of native or endogenous genes (perhaps driven by different promoters) to alter traits of a plant in a specific, directed manner. Such foreign, additional and/or modified genes are referred to herein collectively as “transgenes” and several methods for producing transgenic plants have been developed. Accordingly, embodiments of this invention also include derived inbreds which are transformed versions of inbred maize line RPK7346.

Plant transformation requires construction of an expression vector to function in plant cells. Such an expression vector includes DNA. The vector DNA, in turn, includes a gene under control of, or operatively linked to, a regulatory element such as a promoter. The expression vector may contain one or more such operably linked gene/regulatory element combinations; may be in the form of a plasmid; and can also be used alone, or in combination with other plasmids, to transform maize plants using transformation methods such as those described below.

Marker Genes

Expression vectors usually include at least one genetic marker operably linked to a regulatory element such as a promoter. The regulatory element allows transformed cells containing the marker to be recovered either by negative or positive selection. Negative selection includes inhibiting growth of cells not containing the selectable marker gene. By contrast, positive selection includes screening for the product encoded by the genetic marker. Many commonly used selectable markers for identifying transformed plant cells are known in the art. Such exemplary selectable markers include genes encoding enzymes which metabolically detoxify a selective chemical agent such as an antibiotic or a herbicide. Other selectable markers include genes encoding an altered target which is insensitive to an inhibitor. A few positive selection methods are also known.

One commonly used selectable marker is the neomycin phosphotransferase II gene (nptII), isolated from transposon Tn5 and conferring resistance to kanamycin. Fraley et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 80: 4803 (1983); U.S. Pat. No. 5,858,742 to Fraley et al. Another commonly used selectable marker gene is the hygromycin phosphotransferase gene conferring resistance to the antibiotic hygromycin. Vanden Elzen et al., Plant Mol. Biol., 5: 299 (1985).

Other selectable marker genes of bacterial origin conferring resistance to antibiotics include gentamycin acetyl transferase, streptomycin phosphotransferase, aminoglycoside-3′-adenyl transferase, and bleomycin resistance determinant. Hayford et al., Plant Physiol. 86: 1216 (1988); Jones et al., Mol. Gen. Genet., 210: 86 (1987); Svab et al., Plant Mol. Biol. 14: 197 (1990); and Hille et al., Plant Mol. Biol. 7: 171 (1986).

Still other selectable markers confer resistance to herbicides such as glyphosate, glufosinate, or bromoxynil. Comai et al., Nature 317: 741-744 (1985); Gordon-Kamm et al., Plant Cell 2: 603-618 (1990); and Stalker et al., Science 242: 419-423 (1988).

Yet other selectable marker genes include mouse dihydrofolate reductase, plant 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase, and plant acetolactate synthase. Eichholtz et al., Somatic Cell Mol. Genet. 13: 67 (1987); Shah et al., Science 233: 478 (1986); and Charest et al., Plant Cell Rep. 8: 643 (1990).

Another class of marker genes useful in plant transformation requires screening putatively transformed plant cells rather than direct genetic selection of transformed cells. These genes are used to quantify or visualize spatial patterns of gene expression in specific tissues. Marker genes of this nature are frequently termed “reporter genes” because they can be fused to a gene or gene regulatory sequence to investigate gene expression. Commonly used genes for screening presumptively transformed cells include β-glucuronidase (GUS), β-galactosidase, luciferase and chloramphenicol acetyltransferase. Jefferson, Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 5: 387 (1987); Teeri et al., EMBO J. 8: 343 (1989); Koncz et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 84: 131 (1987); and De Block et al., EMBO J. 3: 1681 (1984). Until recently, methods for visualizing GUS activity required destruction of the living plant material. However, in vivo methods for visualizing GUS activity not requiring destruction of plant tissue are now available. Molecular Probes Publication 2908, Imagene Green™, p. 1-4 (1993); and Naleway et al., J. Cell Biol. 115: 151a (1991). Another method of identifying rare transformation events includes using a gene encoding a dominant constitutive regulator of the Zea mays anthocyanin pigmentation pathway. Ludwig et al., Science 247: 449 (1990). A gene encoding for Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) has been utilized as a marker for gene expression in prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Chalfie et al., Science 263: 802 (1994).

Promoters

Genes in expression vectors must be driven by a nucleotide sequence comprising a regulatory element such as a promoter. Several types of promoters are now known, as are other regulatory elements, which can be used singly or in combination with promoters. As used herein, “promoter” includes a region of DNA upstream from the initial site of transcription. The promoter is involved in recognizing and binding RNA polymerase and other proteins during transcription initiation. A “plant promoter” is a promoter capable of initiating transcription in plant cells.

Examples of promoters under developmental control include promoters which preferentially initiate transcription in certain tissues such as leaves, roots, seeds, fibers, xylem vessels, tracheids, or sclerenchyma. Such promoters are referred to as “tissue-preferred.” Promoters initiating transcription only in certain tissues are referred to as “tissue-specific.” A “cell type-specific” promoter primarily drives expression only in certain cell types present in specific organs, e.g., vascular cells in roots or leaves. An “inducible” promoter is a promoter under environmental control. Examples of environmental conditions affecting transcription by inducible promoters include anaerobic conditions or the presence of light. Tissue-specific, tissue-preferred, cell type-specific, and inducible promoters constitute the class of “non-constitutive” promoters. In contrast to non-constitutive promoters, “constitutive” promoters function under most environmental conditions.

A. Inducible Promoters

An inducible promoter may be operably linked to a gene to be expressed in maize. Optionally, the inducible promoter is operably linked to a nucleotide sequence encoding a signal sequence. The signal sequence, in turn, is operably linked to a gene to be expressed in maize. With an inducible promoter, the rate of transcription increases in response to an inducing agent. Any inducible promoter can be used in conjunction with this invention. See, e.g., Ward et al. Plant Mol. Biol. 22: 361-366 (1993). Exemplary inducible promoters include, but are not limited to, the promoter the ACEI system responding to copper (Mett et al. PNAS 90: 4567-4571 (1993)); the maize In2 gene responding to benzenesulfonamide herbicide safeners (Hershey et al., Mol. Gen. Genetics 227: 229-237 (1991) and Gatz et al., Mol. Gen. Genetics 243: 32-38 (1994)); or the Tet repressor from Tn10 (Gatz et al., Mol. Gen. Genet. 227: 229-237 (1991)). One suitable inducible promoter responds to an inducing agent to which plants do not normally respond. One such exemplary inducible promoter is induced by a glucocorticosteroid hormone. Schena et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 88: 0421 (1991).

B. Constitutive Promoters

A constitutive promoter is operably linked to a gene to be expressed in maize. Alternatively, the constitutive promoter is operably linked to a nucleotide sequence encoding a signal sequence which, in turn, is operably linked to a gene to be expressed in maize. Many different constitutive promoters can be utilized with respect to the inbred of this invention. Exemplary constitutive promoters include, but are not limited to, promoters from plant viruses such as the 35S promoter from CaMV (Odell et al., Nature 313: 810-812 (1985); U.S. Pat. No. 5,858,742 to Fraley et al.); promoters from such plant genes as rice actin (McElroy et al., Plant Cell 2: 163-171 (1990)); ubiquitin (Christensen et al., Plant Mol. Biol 12: 619-632 (1989) and Christensen et al., Plant Mol. Biol. 18: 675-689 (1992)); pEMU (Last et al., Theor. Appl. Genet. 81: 581-588 (1991)); MAS (Velten et al., EMBO J. 3: 2723-2730 (1984)) and maize H3 histone (Lepetit et al., Mol. Gen. Genet. 231: 276-285 (1992) and Atanassova et al., Plant Journal 2(3): 291-300 (1992)); and the ALS promoter, a XbaI/NcoI fragment 5′ to the Brassica napus ALS3 structural gene or a nucleotide sequence with substantial sequence similarity (PCT Application No. WO96/30530).

C. Tissue-specific or Tissue-Preferred Promoters

A tissue-specific promoter is operably linked to a gene to be expressed in maize. Optionally, the tissue-specific promoter is operably linked to a nucleotide sequence encoding a signal sequence which is operably linked to a gene to be expressed in maize. Plants transformed with a gene operably linked to a tissue-specific promoter produce the protein product of the transgene exclusively, or preferentially, in a specific tissue.

Any tissue-specific or tissue-preferred promoter can be introgressed into the inbred of this invention. Exemplary tissue-specific or tissue-preferred promoters include, but are not limited to, a root-preferred promoter, such as that from the phaseolin gene (Murai et al., Science 23: 476-482 (1983) and Sengupta-Gopalan et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 82: 3320-3324 (1985)); a leaf-specific and light-induced promoter such as that from cab or rubisco (Simpson et al., EMBO J. 4(11): 2723-2729 (1985) and Timko et al., Nature 318: 579-582 (1985)); an anther-specific promoter such as that from LAT52 (Twell et al., Mol. Gen. Genet. 217: 240-245 (1989)); a pollen-specific promoter such as that from Zm13 (Guerrero et al., Mol. Gen. Genet. 224: 161-168 (1993)); and a microspore-preferred promoter such as that from apg (Twell et al., Sex. Plant Reprod. 6: 217-224 (1993)).

Signal Sequences For Targeting Proteins to Subcellular Compartments

Proteins produced by transgenes may be transported to a subcellular location such as a chloroplast, vacuole, peroxisome, glyoxysome, cell wall or mitochondrion, or for secretion into the apoplast, by operably linking the nucleotide sequence encoding a signal sequence to the 5′ and/or 3′ region of a gene encoding the protein of interest. Targeting sequences at the 5′ and/or 3′ end of the structural gene may determine where the encoded protein is ultimately compartmentalized during protein synthesis and processing. The presence of a signal sequence directs a polypeptide to an intracellular organelle, a subcellular compartment, or to the apoplast for secretion. Many signal sequences are known in the art. See, e.g., Becker et al., Plant Mol. Biol. 20: 49 (1992); P. S. Close, Master's Thesis, Iowa State University (1993); Knox, et al., “Structure and Organization of Two Divergent Alpha-Amylase Genes From Barley,” Plant Mol. Biol. 9: 3-17 (1987); Lerner et al., Plant Physiol. 91: 124-129 (1989); Fontes et al., Plant Cell 3: 483-496 (1991); Matsuoka et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 88: 834 (1991); Gould et al., J. Cell Biol 108: 1657 (1989); Creissen et al., Plant J. 2: 129 (1991); Kalderon et al., “A short amino acid sequence able to specify nuclear location”, Cell 39: 499-509 (1984); and Stiefel et al., “Expression of a maize cell wall hydroxyproline-rich glycoprotein gene in early leaf and root vascular differentiation,” Plant Cell 2: 785-793 (1990).

Foreign Protein Genes and Agronomic Genes

A foreign protein can be produced by transgenic plants of this invention and may further be produced in commercial quantities. Thus, techniques for selection and propagation of transformed plants understood in the art provide a plurality of transgenic plants which may be harvested in a conventional manner. A foreign protein expressed in the transgenic plants can then be extracted either from a specific tissue or from total harvested plant biomass. Protein extraction from plant biomass can be accomplished by methods which are discussed, e.g., by Heney et al., Anal. Biochem. 114: 92-96 (1981).

Thus, this invention is contemplated to include transformed, therefore derived, embodiments of inbred maize line RPK7346. In another embodiment, the biomass of interest is the vegetative tissue of inbred maize line RPK7346. In yet another embodiment, the biomass of interest is grain (seed). For transgenic plants, a genetic map can be generated, primarily via conventional Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms (RFLP), Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) analysis, and Simple Sequence Repeats (SSR), which identify the approximate chromosomal location of the integrated DNA. For exemplary methodologies in this regard see Glick et al., Methods in Plant Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, 269-284 (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1993). Map information concerning chromosomal location is useful for proprietary protection of a given transgenic plant. Hence, if unauthorized propagation occurs and crosses of the present inbred are made to other germplasm, the map of the integration region can be compared to similar maps of suspect plants, thereby determining whether the suspect plants have a common parentage with the subject plant. Map comparisons require hybridization and subsequent RFLP, PCR, SSR and/or sequencing, all known techniques.

Agronomic genes can be expressed in the transformed plants of this invention. More particularly, plants of this invention can be transformed, or otherwise derived, to express various phenotypes of agronomic interest. Exemplary genes implicated in this regard include, but are not limited to, those categorized below.

1. Genes Conferring Resistance To Pests or Diseases

(A) Plant disease resistance genes. Plant defenses are often activated by specific interaction between the product of a disease resistance gene (R) in the plant and the product of a corresponding avirulence (Avr) gene in the pathogen. A plant variety can be transformed with a cloned disease resistance gene to develop plants resistant to pathogen strains. See, e.g., Jones et al., Science 266: 789 (1994) (cloning of tomato Cf-9 gene resistant to Cladosporium fulvum); Martin et al., Science 262: 1432 (1993) (tomato Pto gene resistant to Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato encoding a protein kinase); Mindrinos et al., Cell 78:1089 (1994) (Arabidopsis RSP2 gene resistant to Pseudomonas syringae); U.S. Pat. No. 5,789,214 to Ryals et al. (chemically regulatable DNA sequences regulating transcription of pathogenesis-related proteins); and PCT Patent Application Publication WO95/16776 to Putman et al. (derivatives of tachyplesin peptide with antimicrobial activity against plant pathogens).

(B) Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) proteins, derivatives thereof, or synthetic polypeptides modeled thereon. See, e.g., Geiser et al., Gene 48: 109 (1986) (cloning and nucleotide sequencing of Bt δ-endotoxin gene). DNA molecules encoding 6-endotoxin genes are designated as ATCC Accession Nos. 40098, 67136, 31995 and 31998 and can be purchased from American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, Va. 20110.

(C) Lectins. See, e., Van Damme et al., Plant Molec. Biol. 24: 25 (1994) (nucleotide sequences of Clivia miniata mannose-binding lectin genes).

(D) Vitamin-binding proteins such as avidin. See e.g., PCT Application No. US93/06487 (avidin and avidin homologues as larvicides against insect pests).

(E) Enzyme inhibitors such as protease inhibitors or amylase inhibitors. See, eg, Abe et al., J. Biol. Chem. 262: 16793 (1987) (nucleotide sequence of rice cysteine proteinase inhibitor); Huub et al., Plant Molec. Biol. 21: 985 (1993) (nucleotide sequence of cDNA encoding tobacco proteinase inhibitor I); and Sumitani et al., Biosci. Biotech. Biochem. 57: 1243 (1993) (nucleotide sequence of Streptomyces nitrosporeus α-amylase inhibitor).

(F) An insect-specific hormone or pheromone such as an ecdysteroid and juvenile hormone, a variant thereof, a mimetic based thereon, or an antagonist or agonist thereof. See, e.g., Hammock et al., Nature 344: 458 (1990), (baculovirus expression of cloned juvenile hormone esterase, an inactivator of juvenile hormone).

(G) Insect-specific peptides or neuropeptides disrupting pest physiologies. See, eg., Regan, Biol. Chem. 269: 9 (1994) (expression cloning yields DNA coding for insect diuretic hormone receptor); and Pratt et al., Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm. 163: 1243 (1989) (allostatin identified in Diploptera puntata); U.S. Pat. No. 5,266,317 to Tomalski et al. (genes encoding insect-specific, paralytic neurotoxins).

(H) Insect-specific venoms produced in nature by, e.g., snakes, wasps. See, eg., Pang et al., Gene 116: 165 (1992) (heterologous expression in plants of a gene coding a scorpion insectotoxic peptide).

(I) Enzymes responsible for hyperaccumulation of monterpenes, a sesquiterpenes, steroids, hydroxamic acids, phenylpropanoid derivatives or other non-protein molecules with insecticidal activity.

(J) Enzymes involved in the modification, including post-translational modification, of biologically active molecules. Such enzymes are contemplated to include natural or synthetic glycolytic enzymes, proteolytic enzymes, lipolytic enzymes, nucleases, cyclases, transaminases, esterases, hydrolases, phosphatases, kinases, phosphorylases, polymerases, elastases, chitinases and glucanases. See, eg., PCT Application No. WO 93/02197 to Scott et al. (callase gene nucleotide sequence). DNA molecules containing chitinase-encoding sequences can be obtained, e.g., from the ATCC under Accession Nos. 39637 and 67152. See, also Kramer et al., Insect Biochem. Molec. Biol. 23: 691 (1993) (nucleotide sequence of cDNA-encoding tobacco hookworm chitinase); and Kawalleck et al., Plant Molec. Biol. 21: 673 (1993) (nucleotide sequence of the parsley ubi4-2 polyubiquitin gene).

(K) Molecules stimulating signal transduction. See, e.g., Botella et al., Plant Molec. Biol. 24: 757 (1994) (nucleotide sequences for mung bean calmodulin cDNA clones); and Griess et al., Plant Physiol. 104: 1467 (1994) (nucleotide sequence of maize calmodulin cDNA clone).

(L) Hydrophobic moment peptides. See, e.g., PCT Application No. WO95/16776 (peptide derivatives of Tachyplesin-inhibiting fungal plant pathogens) and PCT Application No. WO95/18855 (synthetic antimicrobial peptides conferring disease resistance).

(M) Membrane permeases, channel formers, or channel blockers. See, e.g., Jaynes et al., Plant Sci. 89: 43 (1993) (heterologous expression of cecropin-β lytic peptide analog rendering transgenic tobacco plants resistant to Pseudomonas solanacearum).

(N) Viral-invasive proteins or complex toxins derived therefrom. For example, the accumulation of viral coat proteins in transformed plant cells imparting resistance to viral infection and/or disease development effected by the virus from which the coat protein gene is derived, as well as to related viruses. See, eg., Beachy et al., Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 28: 451 (1990). Coat protein-mediated resistance has been conferred on transformed plants against alfalfa mosaic virus, cucumber mosaic virus, tobacco streak virus, potato virus X, potato virus Y, tobacco etch virus, tobacco rattle virus and tobacco mosaic virus. Id.

(O) Insect-specific antibodies or immunotoxins derived therefrom. An antibody targeted to a critical metabolic function in the insect gut inactivating an affected enzyme, thereby killing the insect. Cf. Taylor et al., Abstract #497, SEVENTH INT'L SYMPOSIUM ON MOLECULAR PLANT-MICROBE INTERACTIONS (Edinburgh, Scotland, 1994) (enzymatic inactivation in transgenic tobacco via single-chain antibody fragment production).

(P) Virus-specific antibodies. See, eg., Tavladoraki et al., Nature 366: 469 (1993), (transgenic plants expressing recombinant antibody genes are protected from virus attack), hereby incorporated by reference.

(Q) Developmental-arrestive proteins produced by pathogens or parasites. See, eg., Lamb et al., Bio/Technology 10: 1436 (1992) (fungal endo α-1,4-D-polygalacturonases facilitating fungal colonization and plant nutrient release by solubilizing plant cell wall homo-α-1,4-D-galacturonase); and Toubart et al., Plant J. 2: 367 (1992) (cloning and characterization of a gene encoding bean endopolygalacturonase-inhibiting protein).

(R) Developmental-arrestive proteins produced by plants. See, eg., Logemann et al., Bio/Technology 10: 305 (1992) (increased resistance to fungal disease in transgenic plants expressing barley ribosome-inactivating gene).

2. Genes Conferring Resistance To Herbicides

(A) Herbicides inhibiting growing points or meristems such as imidazolinone or a sulfonylurea. Exemplary genes in this category encode mutant ALS and AHAS enzymes, respectively described by Lee et al., EMBO J. 7: 1241 (1988); and Miki et al., Theor. Appl. Genet. 80: 449 (1990).

(B) Glyphosate resistance (imparted by mutant 5-enolpyruvl-3-phosphoshikimate synthase (EPSP) and aroA genes, respectively) and other phosphono compounds such as glufosinate (phosphinothricin acetyl transferase (PAT) and Streptomyces hygroscopicus phosphinothricin acetyl transferase (bar) genes), and pyridinoxy or phenoxy proprionic acids and cyclohexones (ACCase inhibitor-encoding genes). See, eg., U.S. Pat. No. 4,940,835 to Shah et al., (EPSP clone conferring glyphosate resistance). A DNA molecule encoding a mutant aroA gene can be obtained under ATCC Accession No. 39256. The nucleotide sequence of such a mutant gene is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,769,061 to Comai. European Patent Application No. 0 333 033 to Kumada et al. and U.S. Pat. No. 4,975,374 to Goodman et al. disclose nucleotide sequences of glutamine synthetase genes conferring resistance to herbicides such as L-phosphinothricin. A nucleotide sequence of a phosphinothricin-acetyl-transferase gene is disclosed in European Patent Application 0 242 246 to Leemans et al. De Greef et al., Bio/Technology 7: 61 (1989), describe the production of transgenic plants expressing chimeric bar genes coding for phosphinothricin acetyl transferase activity. Exemplary genes conferring resistance to phenoxy proprionic acids and cyclohexones, such as sethoxydim and haloxyfop, are the Acc1-S1, Acc1-S2 and Acc1-S3 genes described by Marshall et al., Theor. Appl. Genet. 83: 435 (1992).

(C) A herbicide inhibiting photosynthesis such as triazines (psbA and gs+genes) and benzonitriles (nitrilase gene). Przibilla et al. , Plant Cell 3: 169 (1991) (transformation of Chlamydomonas using plasmids encoding mutant psbA genes); U.S. Pat. No. 4,810,648 to Stalker (nucleotide sequences for nitrilase genes, available under ATCC Accession Nos. 53435, 67441 and 67442); Hayes et al., Biochem. J. 285:173 (1992) (cloning and expression of DNA coding for glutathione S-transferase).

3. Genes Conferring, Or Contributing To, Value-Added Traits in Maize

(A) Modified fatty acid metabolism, for example, transforming a plant with an antisense gene of stearoyl-ACP desaturase to increase stearic acid content. See, eg., Knultzon et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89: 2624 (1992).

(B) Decreased phytate content

(1) Phytase-encoding genes enhancing breakdown of phytate by adding free phosphate to the transformed plant. See, e.g., Van Hartingsveldt et al., Gene 127: 87 (1993) (nucleotide sequence of an Aspergillus niger phytase gene).

(2) Genes reducing phytate content. For example, cloning, then reintroducing DNA associated with the allele responsible for maize mutants characterized by low levels of phytic acid. See, eg., Raboy et al., Maydica 35: 383 (1990).

(C) Modified carbohydrate compositions. For example, transforming plants with a gene encoding an enzyme altering starch branching patterns. See, e.g., Shiroza et al., J. Bacteriol. 170: 810 (1988) (nucleotide sequence of Streptococcus mutans fructosyltransferase gene); Steinmetz et al., Mol. Gen. Genet. 200: 220 (1985) (nucleotide sequence of Bacillus subtilis levansucrase gene); Pen et al., Bio/Technology 10: 292 (1992) (production of transgenic plants expressing Bacillus licheniformis α-amylase); Elliot et al., Plant Molec. Biol. 21: 515 (1993) (nucleotide sequences of tomato invertase genes); SØgaard et al., J. Biol. Chem. 268: 22480 (1993) (site-directed mutagenesis of barley α-amylase gene); and Fisher et al., Plant Physiol. 102: 1045 (1993) (maize endosperm starch branching enzyme II).

Maize Transformation Methods

Plant transformation methods contemplated to transform the inbred of this invention include biological and physical plant transformation protocols. See, eg., Miki et al., “Procedures for Introducing Foreign DNA into Plants” IN Methods in Plant Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, B. R. Glick and J. E. Thompson, Eds. (CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, 1993) pages 67-88; Gruber et al., “Vectors for Plant Transformation” in Methods in Plant Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (expression vectors and in vitro culture methods for plant cell or tissue transformation and regeneration of plants); and B. R. Glick and J. E. Thompson, Eds., CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, (1993) pages 89-119 (expression vectors and in vitro culture methods for plant cell or tissue transformation and regeneration of plants).

A. Agrobacterium-mediated Transformation

One method for introducing an expression vector into plants is based on the natural transformation system of Agrobacterium. See, eg., Horsch et al., Science 227: 1229 (1985). A. tumefaciens and A. rhizogenes are plant pathogenic soil bacteria which infect plant cells and genetically transform plant cells during infection. The Ti and Ri plasmids of A. tumefaciens and A. rhizogenes, respectively, carry genes responsible for genetic transformation of the plant. See, e.g., Kado, Crit. Rev. Plant. Sci.10: 1 (1991). Descriptions of Agrobacterium vector systems and methods for Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer (transformation) are provided by Gruber et al., “Vectors for Plant Transformation” IN Methods in Plant Molecular Biology and Biotechnology; Miki et al., “Procedures for Introducing Foreign DNA into Plants” IN Methods in Plant Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, B. R. Glick and J. E. Thompson, Eds. (CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, 1993) pages 67-88; and Moloney et al., Plant Cell Reports 8: 238 (1989); and U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,616 to Hiei et al.

B. Direct Gene Transfer

Despite the fact that the host range for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation is broad and with some exceptions in rice and maize, most major cereal crop species and gymnosperms have generally been recalcitrant to this mode of gene transfer. Hiei et al., The Plant Journal 6: 271-282 (1994); and U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,616 to Hiei et al. Several methods of plant transformation, collectively referred to as direct gene transfer, have been developed as alternatives to Agrobacterium-mediated transformation.

One generally applicable method of plant transformation is microprojectile-mediated transformation, wherein an expression vector is applied to the surfaces of 1 to 4 μm diameter microprojectiles. The expression vector is then introduced into plant tissues with a biolistic device which accelerates the microprojectiles to velocities sufficient to penetrate plant cell walls and membranes of the tissues, e.g., 300 to 600 m/s. Sanford et al., Part. Sci. Technol. 5: 27 (1987); Sanford, Trends Biotech. 6: 299 (1988); Klein et al., Bio/Technology 6: 559-563 (1988); Sanford, Physiol Plant 79: 206 (1990); Klein et al., Biotechnology 10: 268 (1992); U.S. Pat. No. 5,550,318 to Adams et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,887,023 to Sautter et al; and U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,886,244 and 5,990,387 to Tomes et al., the contents of each hereby incorporated by reference. In maize, several target tissues can be bombarded with DNA-coated microprojectiles to produce transgenic, hence derived, plants, including, for example, callus (Type I or Type II), immature embryos, and meristematic tissue.

Another method for physical delivery of DNA to plants is sonication of target cells. Zhang et al., Bio/Technology 9: 996 (1991). Alternatively, liposome or spheroplast fusion may be used to introduce expression vectors into plants. Deshayes et al., EMBO J., 4: 2731 (1985); Christou et al., Proc Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 84: 3962 (1987). Direct uptake of DNA into protoplasts using CaCl₂ precipitation, polyvinyl alcohol or poly-L-ornithine has also been reported. Hain et al., Mol. Gen. Genet. 199: 161 (1985) and Draper et al., Plant Cell Physiol. 23: 451 (1982). Electroporation of protoplasts and whole cells and tissues has also been described. Donn et al., In Abstracts of VIth International Congress on Plant Cell and Tissue Culture IAPTC, A2-38, p 53 (1990); D'Halluin et al., Plant Cell 4: 1495-1505 (1992); Spencer et al., Plant Mol. Biol. 24: 51-61(1994); and U.S. Pat. No. 5,384,263 to Krzyzek et al., previously referenced.

Following transformation of maize target tissues, expression of the above-described selectable marker genes allows for preferential selection of transformed cells, tissues and/or plants using regeneration and selection methods known to the art.

The foregoing transformation methods may be used to produce transgenic derived inbred lines of this invention. These transgenic inbred lines may then be crossed with another (non-transformed or transformed) inbred line to produce a transgenic hybrid maize plant. Alternatively, a genetic trait introgressed into a maize line using the foregoing transformation protocols may be transferred to another line using traditional backcrossing techniques known to the plant breeding arts, e.g., backcrossing an engineered trait from a public, non-elite line into an elite line, or from a hybrid maize plant with a foreign transformed gene into an inbred line not containing that gene. As used herein, “crossing” can refer to a simple X by Y cross, or the process of backcrossing.

Industrial Applicability

Maize is used as human food, livestock feed, and as raw materials in industry. The food uses of maize, in addition to human consumption of maize kernels, include products of the dry-milling and wet-milling industries. The principal products of maize dry milling are grits, meal and flour. The maize wet-milling industry provides maize starch, maize syrup, and dextrose for food use. Maize oil is recovered from maize germ which is a by-product of both the dry-milling and wet-milling industries.

Maize, including both grain and non-grain portions of the plant, is also used extensively as livestock feed, primarily for beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, and poultry.

Industrial uses of maize include production of ethanol, maize starch in the wet-milling industry, and maize flour in the dry-milling industry. The industrial applications of maize starch and flour are based on functional properties such as viscosity, film formation, adhesive properties, and abilities to suspend particles. Maize starch and flour have applications in paper and textile industries. Other industrial uses include adhesives, building materials, foundry binders, laundry starches, explosives, oil-well muds, and mining applications.

Plant parts other than the grain of maize are also used in industry. For example, stalks and husks are made into paper and wallboard and cobs are used for fuel and in making charcoal.

Hence, the seed of inbred maize line RPK7346, the plant produced from the inbred seed, the hybrid maize plant produced from the crossing of the inbred, hybrid seed, and various parts of the hybrid maize plant and transgenic versions of the foregoing, can be utilized for human food, livestock feed, and as a raw material in industry.

Deposits

Applicant has made a deposit of at least 2500 seeds of Inbred Maize Line RPK7346 with the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), Manassas, Va. 20110 USA, ATCC Deposit No. PTA-4731. The seeds deposited with the ATCC on Sep. 27, 2002 were obtained from the Applicant and maintained by Applicant's attorney since prior to the filing date of this application. This seed deposit of Inbred Maize Line RPK7346 will be maintained in the ATCC depository, which is a public depository, for a period of 30 years, or five years after the most recent request or for the effective life of the patent, whichever is longer, and will be replaced if it becomes nonviable during that period. Additionally, Applicant has satisfied all the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §§.1.801-1.809, including providing an indication of the viability of the sample. Applicant imposes no restrictions on the availability of the deposited material from the ATCC; however, Applicant has no authority to waive any restrictions imposed by law on the transfer of biological material or its transportation in commerce. Applicant does not waive any infringement of rights granted under this patent.

The foregoing invention has been described in detail by way of illustration and example for purposes of clarity and understanding. However, it will be obvious that certain changes and modifications such as single gene modifications and mutations, somaclonal variants, variant individuals selected from large populations of the plants of the instant inbred and the like may be practiced within the scope of the invention as limited only by the scope of the appended claims. 

What is claimed is:
 1. A seed of a maize inbred line designated RPK7346, a representative sample of said seed deposited under ATCC Accession No. PTA-4731.
 2. A regenerable cell arising from the seed of claim
 1. 3. A tissue culture arising from culture arising he regenerable cell of claim 2 and capable of regenerating plants capable of expressing all the morphological and physiological characteristics of the inbred line RPK7346.
 4. A maize plant arising from regenerating the tissue culture of claim 3 and capable of expressing all the morphological and physiological characteristics of the inbred line RPK7346.
 5. A maize plant arising from the seed of claim 1 and having all die physiological and morphological characteristics of inbred line RPK7346.
 6. Pollen arising from the maize plant of claim
 5. 7. An ovule arising from the maize plant of claim
 5. 8. A regenerable cell arising from the maize plant of claim
 5. 9. A tissue culture of regenerable cells or protoplasts of inbred line RPK7346, representative seed of which have been deposited under ATCC Accession No. PTA-4731, the tissue culture capable of regenerating plants capable of expressing all the morphological and physiological characteristics of the inbred line RPK7346.
 10. A tissue culture according to claim 9, the cells or protoplasts arising from an explanted tissue selected from the group consisting of a leaf, a pollen grain an embryo, a root, a root tip, an anther, a silk, a flower, a seed, an ear, a cob, a husk, and a stalk.
 11. A maize plant regenerated from the tissue culture of claim 9, the maize plant capable of expressing all the morphological and physiological characteristics of inbred line RPK7346.
 12. A process for producing a maize seed comprising crossing a first maize plant with a second maize plant such that a seed develops, one of said first and second maize plants arising from a seed of a maize inbred line designated RPK7346, a representative sample of said seed deposited under ATCC Accession No. PTA-4731.
 13. A zygote arising from the process of claim
 12. 14. The process of claim 12, further comprising harvesting the seed.
 15. The process of claim 12, in which both said first and second maize plants arise from the seed of the maize inbred designated RPK7346.
 16. The seed arising from the process of claim
 12. 17. A maize plant, or parts thereof, arising from the seed of claim
 16. 18. The process of claim 12, further comprising detasseling said first plant.
 19. The process of claim 12, further comprising planting the seeds of said first and second plants in proximity such that the first plant is fertilized by pollen from the second plant.
 20. A process of producing a maize seed, comprising: identifying an inbred maize plant arising from the seed of claim 1, said inbred maize plant disposed within an assemblage of hybrid maize plants; and pollinating the inbred maize plant.
 21. The process of claim 20, in which the inbred maize plant is self-pollinated.
 22. The process of claim 20, in which the inbred maize plant is pollinated with pollen from another maize plant, the other maize plant not arising from the seed of claim
 1. 23. The process of claim 20, further comprising planting seed of the inbred maize plant and seed of the hybrid maize plants such that said inbred maize plant and said assemblage of hybrid maize plants grow therefrom.
 24. The process of claim 20, in which identifying the inbred maize plant comprises identifying a plant with deceased vigor.
 25. The process of claim 20, in which identifying the inbred maize plant comprises identifying a homozygous genotype.
 26. The process of claim 20, in which the inbred maize plant is self-pollinated or sibbed.
 27. A zygote arising from the process of claim
 20. 28. A maize seed arising from the process of claim
 20. 29. A maize plant arising from the maize seed of claim
 28. 30. A process of inbreeding a maize plant, the process comprising inbreeding a maize plant arising from claim 22 such that seed arises therefrom.
 31. The process of claim 30, further comprising harvesting the seed.
 32. The process of claim 31, further comprising: planting the seed obtained from claim 31 such that maize plants arise therefrom; inbreeding the maize plants such that seed arise therefrom; and harvesting the seed arising from said inbreeding, said planting, inbreeding, and harvesting cyclically continuing until a fly obtained from a plant arising from at least one of said seed is substantially homogeneous.
 33. A zygote obtained from the process of claim
 30. 34. A seed obtained from the process of claim
 30. 35. A plant arising from the seed of claim
 34. 36. The process of claim 30, in which inbreeding comprises self-pollination.
 37. The process of claim 32, in which inbreeding comprises sibbing.
 38. A process of producing maize grain, comprising: providing a hybrid maize seed, said hybrid maize seed having a plant of claim 5 as a parent; and planting the hybrid maize seed such that hybrid maize plants grow therefrom and such that grain arises from said hybrid maize plants.
 39. The process of claim 38, further comprising harvesting the grain.
 40. The grain of claim
 39. 41. A process of producing a maize seed, comprising: providing a hybrid maize plant, said hybrid maize plant having the plant of claim 5 as a parent; and pollinating the hybrid maize plant such that the maize seed arises therefrom.
 42. The process of claim 41, further comprising harvesting the maize seed.
 43. The process of claim 41, in which the hybrid maize plant is self-pollinated.
 44. The process of claim 41, in which the hybrid maize plant is pollinated by a maize plant having another genotype.
 45. A zygote arising from the process of claim
 41. 46. A maize seed arising from the process of claim
 41. 47. A maize plant arising from the maize seed of claim
 46. 48. A process of producing a hybrid maize seed, comprising. planting a first seed and a second seed in proximity such that pollen from a second plant arising from the second seed will pollinate a first plant arising from the first seed and such that said hybrid seed will arise from said pollination, the first seed designated as RPK7346, representative seed deposited under ATCC Accession No. PTA-4731; and harvesting said hybrid seed.
 49. The hybrid seed arising from the process of claim
 48. 50. A process of developing a derived maize plant, comprising: providing a plant arising from the seed of claim 1; and introgressing a trait into said plant.
 51. A zygote obtained by pollinating the derived plant developed from the process of claim
 50. 52. A maize seed arising from the zygote of claim
 51. 53. A plant arising from the maize seed of claim
 52. 54. The process of claim 50 in which introgressing comprises a protocol selected from the group consisting of backcrossing, tissue culture, use of indeterminate gametophyte, anther culture, transformation, and any combination thereof.
 55. The process of claim 54, in which the transformation protocol is selected from the group consisting of microprojectile-mediated transformation, Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, electroporation, needle-like body-facilitated transformation, polyethylene glycol-facilitated transformation, and any combination thereof. 